WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

, was a learned and pious Irish prelate, of whose early history we find no account. Mr. Nichols, in his “Anecdotes,” says that he “appears to have been appointed to be minister of St. Peter’s, Paul’s Wharf, London, after the sequestration of Edward Merbury;” but this is quite, inconsistent with bishop Kenn’s account of him, in his funeral sermon on lady Margaret Maynard. There he says that Dr. Mossom, during the usurpation, was silenced, plundered, and persecuted. After the restoration we can trace him more exactly. He was made, in 1660, dean of Christ Church, Dublin, and in 1662, prebendary of Knaresborough in the cathedral of York. From thence he was promoted to the see of Derry in March 1666, with which he held his deanery of Christ Church, but resigned his prebend. He died at Londonderry, Dec. 21, 1679, and was buried in the cathedral. Harris mentions his book entitled “The Preacher’s Tripartite,” Lond. 1657; fol. and another, “Variae colloquendi Formulas, in usum condiscipulorum in palaestra literaria sub paterno moderamine vires Minervales exercentium, parthn collects, partim composite a Roberto Mossom,” Lond. 1659, by which it appears that his father taught a school in London. Mr. Nichols enumerates a, few single sermons and speeches, a “Narrative panegyrical on the life, &c. of George Wild, bishop of Derry,” 1665, 4to; and “Zion’s prospect in its first view, in a summary of divine truths, viz. of God, Providence, decrees,” &c. 1654, 4to, reprinted at least twice, the last in 1711.

, a distinguished French writer in the seventeenth century, to be classed with those whose scepticism and indelicacies have disgraced their talents, was born at Paris in 1588, of a family of gentlemen of the long robe. He was himself educated for the bar, and long held the office which his father resigned to him, of substitute procurator-general to the parliament; but his love of polite literature induced him to desert his profession, and employ his time in study and writing. By this he acquired such reputation as to be received into the French academy in 1639, of which he was accounted one of the ablest members. When a tutor was to be appointed for Louis XIV. in 1644, it was generally supposed that La Alothe le Vayer would have been the man, and it certainly was so intended by cardinal Richelieu, both on account of an excellent work he had published on the education of the dauphin, and the reputation his other writings had acquired to him; but the queen having determined not to bestow the place on a married man> the design was dropt. It is probable that the queen’s object, in refusing a married man, was to prefer an ecclesiastic, of whose religious principles she might be secure; for those of Le Vayer were already more than suspected by his work De la Vertu de Payens."

Having thus failed in obtaining the first situation in which a man of letters could be placed, he succeeded, in 1647, in being appointed to what might be considered as the second, that of preceptor to Philip, then duke of Anjou, and afterwards duke of Orleans, the king’s brother. He had also conferred on him the titles of historiographer of France and counsellor of state. By his first wife he had an only son, who died in 1664, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His wife also being dead long before, he is said to have been so much afflicted at the loss of his son, as to determine to marry again, which he did the same year, 1664, at the age of seventy-six He died in 1672, aged eightyfour. He was a voluminous writer, and upon all subjects, ancient, modern, sacred and profane. We cannot, perhaps, to some of our readers, give a better idea of his works, than by comparing them to those of Bayle. We find in them the same scepticism and the same indecencies; and on this account Bayle expatiates on his character with congenial pleasure. In his private character, he was somewhat of a humourist, but his moral conduct was more correct than might have been expected from his writings. He is mentioned hy Guy Patin as a Stoic, who would neither praise nor be praised, and who followed his own fancies and caprices without any regard to the opinions of the world, and his dress and usual demeanour distinguished him from other men. In the court he lived like a philosopher, immersed in books, simple and regular in his manner of living, and void of ambition and avarice. His treatise which we have mentioned, “On the Virtue of Pagans/' was answered by Arnauld. La Mothers bookseller complaining that his book did not sell,” I know a secret,“said the author,” to quicken the sale:" he procured an order from government for its suppression, which was the means of selling the whole edition. His works were collected in two volumes folio; and there was an edition, we believe the last, printed at Dresden, in 1756, in 14 vols. 8vo, so lowpriced, in the French catalogues, that there seems now little value placed on them.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 17, 1672. He was educated in a seminary of Jesuits, and afterwards entered on the study of the law, which he quitted for the stage, as in his opinion affording the more brilliant prospect. His first attempt, however, a comedy, miscarried, and he felt the disgrace so acutely as to throw himself into the celebrated monastery of La Trappe, where he fancied he could comply with its austerities; but after a few months he returned to the world, and produced some operas and pastorals, which had considerable success. His lyric efforts were particularly applauded, and he now published a volume of odes; but in these, says D'Alembert, “the images are scanty, the colouring feeble, and the harmony often neglected.” Dr. Warton had pronounced, long before, that these odes, although highly praised by Sanadon, and by Fontenelle, were fuller of delicate sentiment, and philosophical reflection, than of imagery, figures, and poetry. There are particular stanzas eminently good, but not one entire ode. So far the French and English critics seem to agree. We learn also, from D'Alembert, that La Motte’s odes were soon effaced by those of the celebrated Rousseau, who, with less wit, perhaps, than La Motte, had superior qualifications for the higher poetry. Yet, when these rivals became competitors for a seat in the academy in 1710, La Motte was preferred, from his having friends who loved him, while Rousseau, from his repulsive temper, did not possess one. La Motte succeeded Corneille in the academy, and, like him, was at this time nearly blind. He very ingeniously made use of this calamity, in his discourse at his reception, to interest his auditors. After having spoken of the merit of his predecessor, he proceeded “You have beheld him faithful to your duties till extreme old age, infirm as he was, and already deprived of sight. The mention of this circumstance makes rne feel the condition to which I am myself reduced. What age ravished from my predecessor, I have lost from my youth. I must, however, confess, that this privation of which I complain, will no longer serve me as an excuse for ignorance you, gentlemen, have restored me my sight you, by associating me with yourselves, have laid all books open to me; and, since I am able to hear you, I no longer envy the happiness of those who can read.” La Motte soon after became totally deprived of sight. He next ventured to appear on a theatre more worthy of a poet’s ambition, and produced the tragedy of the “Maccabees,” concealing his name. The critics found a great deal of merit in it while this concealment lasted and some went so far as to conceive it a posthumous work of Racine but when he discovered himself, they withdrew their praises, or changed them into censures; and the tragedy, being really of the mediocre kind, disappeared from the stage. It was followed by others, of which “Ines de Castro” obtained a permanent place on the stage, notwithstanding many attacks from wit, malice, and arrogance; all which he bore with good-humour. He was one day in a coffee-house, in the midst of a swarm of literary drones, who were abusing his work without knowing the author. He patiently heard them a long time in silence, and then called out to a friend who accompanied him, “Let us go and yawn at the fiftieth representation of this unfortunate piece.” At another time, when told of the numerous criticisms made on his tragedy, “It is true,” said he, “it has been much criticised, but with tears.”

He wrote also six comedies, of which the “Magnifique” still pleases by the ingenuity of its details, and the charms of its style. All his cornddies are written in prose: and when he produced his tragedy of “Œdipus,” after having first written it in verse, he turned it into prose, which gave occasion to the publication of his system of prose tragedies, so ingeniously supported, and so warmly refuted; the result of the controversy was, that all the menof let ers in France deckled in favour of verse. In 1714, he published his translation of Homer’s Iliad, in which he was still less successful then in his anti- poetical paradoxes. He presumed also to write against Homer, and was answered by madame Dacier; but by this, says D'Alembert, he offered Homer a less injury than by translating him into French verse. He had attacked the subject, the disposition-, and the entire plan of the Iliad, with much ingenuity, but he did not render sufficient justice to the sublime beauties of Homer, and still less was he able to transfer these beauties to his version. He substituted a bare skeleton to the monster he meant to combat; and as he had raised the public laughter against his adversaries, he exposed himself to their shafts by an unskilful travesty of the object of their worship. The powerful diversion he afforded them by this mistake lost him almost all his advantages; and the French Iliad consoled madam Dacier for the ridicule which had been thrown upon her by the answer of la Motte to her criticisms, which was undoubtedly a very witty and ingenious defence of a bad cause. Some years after, in 1719, he produced his “Fables,” which were praised for invention and moral, while it was allowed that they were in other respects not to be compared with those of La Fontaine. Besides these he wrote, at different times, many other species of poetry, eclogues, cantatas, psalms, hymns, &c. of which, as well as his other productions, D'Alembert says, “he wished to make verses, and felt that nature tiad not made him a poet he wished to compose odes, and felt that he had more good sense than warmth, more reason than enthusiasm; he wished to write tragedies, and saw himself at an immense distance from Corneille and Racine; he wished to produce fables, and felt that his genius, the character of which was artful refinement, would in vain aim at the charming simplicity of la Fontaine.” If, however, La Motte’s verses are not master-pieces of poetry, his prosewritings may be regarded as models of style. The talent of writing prose well is a merit that scarcely any French poet possessed before la Motte. His answer to madame Dacier, entitled “Reflections on Criticism,” and his prefaces to his works, are master-pieces of elegance. All his academical discourses, delivered on different occasions, were excellent; but the most applauded was his eulogy on Lewis XIV. pronounced at a public sitting after the death of that prince, which, of all the funeral orations made on him, is the only one which is not yet entirely forgotten.

Such was the versatility of la Motte’s genius, that he wrote charges for bishops; and though the secret was kept by both parties, his touch and manner betrayed him. He was also the author of several other writings, which his enemies would have treated with severity had they known the real father, but for which the supposed father received their profound homage. But while some prelates employed the pen of la Motte in the service of religion, by composing their charges, others accused him of being an unbeliever. Among his works has been printed “A Plan of Evidence for Religion,” which D'Alembert mentions with praise, and which was praised by much better judges of the subject. Satire only was the kind of composition in which la Motte did not exercise himself: and this his eulogist attributes to the mildness and honour of his character. It certainly was not from want of ability; and he was so frequently the object of satire, as to have sufficient provocation. This forbearance, however, and the general sweetness of his temper, gained him many partisans. No one more sincerely than he applauded the success even of his rivals; no one encouraged rising talents with more zeal and interest no one praised good works with more genuine satisfaction if he pointed out faults in them, it was not to enjoy the easy glory of mortifying another’s vanity it was with the feeling to which critics are strangers, and which common readers rarely entertain, that of being really concerned to find a blot It was therefore said of him, that “justice and justness” was his motto. Of both these qualities he exhibited a distinguished proof when he gave, as censor, his approbation to Voltaire’s first tragedy; for he did not hesitate to add to it, “that this work gave promise of a worthy successor on the theatre to Corneille and Racine.” Such candour and mildness were all he opposed, not only to literary insults, but to personal affronts. A young 1 man, upon whose foot he once happened to tread in a crowd, gave him a blow on the face. “Sir,” said la Motte to him, “you will be very sorry for what you have done: I am blind.” With the same patience he endured the painful infirmities under which he laboured, and which terminated his life on December 26, 1731. In 1754, a complete edition of all his works was published in eleven large volumes, 8vo, but such is the declension of his popularity that no edition has since been called for. La Harpe (in his “Lyceum”) says, that when he first entered life, la Motte had already descended into the class of authors who are never read but by men of letters, who must read everything. Some passages in his operas, a few strophes of his odes, and occasionally one of his fables, were quoted: and his tragedy of “Ines,” though held in no great value, retained its place on the stage. The harshness of his versification was admitted on all hands, and his paradoxes were never mentioned but in order to be ridiculed.

, a native of France, was born in 1660, at Rouen, in Normandy, where also he received his education, on the revocation of the edict of Nantz he came over to England, and lived at first with his godfather and relation, Paul Dominique, esq. but afterwards grew a considerable trader himself, kept a large East-India warehouse in Leadenhall-street, and had a good place in the foreign post-office. During his residence in this kingdom, he acquired a great knowledge of the English language, and not only published a good translation of “Don Quixote,” but also wrote several “Songs,” “Prologues,” “Epilogues,” &c. dedicated a poem “On Tea,” to the Spectator, and, what was still more extraordinary, became a successful dramatic writer in the language of a country of which he was not a native. The respective titles of his numerous pieces of that kind may be seen in the “Biographia Dramatica.” Although married to a very beautiful woman, his morals were licentious, and he was one day found dead in a brothel in the parish of St. Clement Danes, not without suspicion of having been murdered; though other accounts state that he was in some measure accessary to his death. This happened Feb. 19, 1717-18, which, being his birth-day, exactly completed his fifty-eighth year. His body was interred in his parish-church, that of St. Andrew Undershaft, in the city of London.

, a celebrated French lady, was born in Normandy about 1615. She was the daughter of a gentleman who belonged to the court; and her wit and amiable manners recommended her to Anne of Austria, who kept her constantly near her. Cardinal Richelieu, who was always jealous of the favourites of this princess, having disgraced her, she retired, with her mother, to Normandy, where she married Nicolas Langlois, lord of Motteviile, an old man, who died in about two years. After the death of Richelieu, Anne of Austria, having been declared regent, recalled her to court. Here gratitude induced her to write the history of this princess, which has been printed several times under the title of “Memoires pour servir a I‘Histoire d’Anne d' Austriche” in 5 and 6 volumes, 12mo. These Memoirs describe the minority of Lewis XIV. and are written in a natural, unaffected style; and, says Gibbon, it is a proof of the author’s sincerity, that though she had a very high opinion of her mistress, the candour with which she relates facts, shews us Anne of Austria as she really was. Madame de Motteviile died at Paris, Dec. 29, 1689, aged seventyfive. There was a very great confidence and even intimacy between Henrietta, the widow of our Charles I. and madame de Motteviile.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

, a physician and naturalist of the sixteenth century, was born in London, in or near St. Leonard’s-* parish, Shoreditch, as Wood conjectures, where he received his early education. He was then sent to Cambridge, as we learn from his “Health’s Improvement,” and not to Oxford, as Wood says; and afterwards travelled through several of the countries of Europe, contracting an acquaintance with many of the most eminent foreign physicians and chemists. Before his return he had taken the degree of M. D. in which he was incorporated at Cambridge in 1582, and settled in London, where he practised ph) sic with considerable reputation. It appears also, that he resided for some time at Ipswich. He was particularly patronized by Peregrine Bertie, lord Willoughby, and accompanied him on his embassy, to carry the ensigns of the order of the ganer to the king of Denmark. He likewise was in camp with the earl of Essex in Normandy, probably in 1591. He spent much of the latter part of his life at Bulbridge, near Wilton, in Wiltshire, as a retainer to the Pembroke family, from which he received an annual pension. He died in that retirement, about the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign.

Dr. Moufet appears to have been among the first physicians who introduced chemical medicines into practice in England. He published in 1584, at Francfort, an apology for the chemical seer, which was then beginning to prevail in Germany, though much opposed by the adherents of the school of the ancients: it was entitled “De jure et praestantia Chemicorum Medicamentorum, Dialogus Apologeticus.” The work, which displays a good deal of learning and skill in argumentation, was republished in the “Theatrum Chemicum,” in 1602, with the addition of “Epistolae quinque Medicinales, ab eodem Auctore conscript,” which are all dated from London in 1582, 3, and 4. These epistles contain a farther defence of the chemical doctrines, some keen remarks on the fanciful reasonings of the Galenists, and many sensible observations against absolute submission to the authority of great names. The last of these letters treats of the benefits of foreign travel to a physician, and describes Padua as the best medical school. His liberality, as well as his learning, was evinced in the publication of another work, “Nosomantica Hippocratica, sive Hippocratis Prognostica cuncta, ex omnibus ipsius scriptis, methodice digesta, Libri ix.” Franc. 1588; for the writings of the father of physic were treated with contempt by Paracelsus, and the majority of the chemical sect. The last medical work of Moufet’s is entitled “Health’s Improvement; or, rules comprising and discovering the nature, method, and manner of preparing all sorts of food used in this nation.” A corrected and enlarged edition of this book was printed by Christopher Bennet at London, 1655, 4to. It is a curious and entertaining performance, on account of the information which it contains respecting the diet used in this country at that time. He was, however, most particularly distinguished as a naturalist; and he enlarged and finished, with great labour and expence, a work entitled “Insectorum, sive minimorum Animalium Theatrum; olina ab Edw. Wottono, Conrado Gesnero, Thomaque Pennio inchoatum.” It was left in manuscript, and published in London, in 1634, by sir Theodore Mayerne, who complains of the difficulty he found in getting a printer to undertake it. An English translation of it was published in 1658. Though not free from the imperfections of an infant science, this was really. a respectable and valuable work; and Haller does not scruple to place the author above all other entomologists previous to Swammerdam.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

It was in 1552 that he first began to be involved in troubles, which lasted more or less during his whole life. Some years before, Henry II. had issued an edict to repress the frauds and abuses practised at Rome by the conveyancers of benefices, to the great detriment of the ecclesiastical order; and this having occasioned a dispute between his majesty and pope Julius II. he published a new edict forbidding money to be sent to Rome on any pretence. This gave great offence to the pope, who insisted that kings had no right to pass edicts which interfered with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the authority of the holy see was injured by such proceedings. Yet, says Thuanus, our kings always had such a right, and now Du Moulin maintained it with all the force of his profound legal knowledge, and produced not only arguments, but precedents for it; and in treating of the spiritual power of the pope, he traced it to foundations which were by no means of the most honourable kind. This was, in that age, a very bold attempt, and in fact so disconcerted the pope, as to make him willing to listen to the pacific overtures made by the king. It was on this occasion that the marshal de Montmorency (afterwards constable of France) introduced Du Moulin to the king, with these words, “Sire, what your majesty has not been able to do with 300,000 men, has been effected by this little man (Du Moulin was of short stature) with his little book.” The court of Rome, however, never forgot the injury: Clement VIII. ordered his works to be burnt, and they were placed in the “Index expurgatorius,” in the first class of prohibited books. In the permissions which used to be given to read certain works in the Index, those of Machiavel and the impious Du Moulin“were always excepted. Those, however, who in the countries where the Index of prohibited books was respected, were unwilling to be thus totally deprived of the benefit arising from Du Moulin’s able writings on jurisprudence, contrived to have them reprinted under the fictitious name of Gaspar Caballinus de Cingulo; and it was under that name that they used to be quoted for many years. But it was not only at Rome where Du Moulin had to encounter the prejudices of the times; even in France, although his” Observa-f tionssur TEdit du Roi Henry II." (for such was the title of the work) was dedicated to the king, and printed with the royal privilege, it did not fail to render him very obnoxious to such of his countrymen as preferred the interests of Rome to the independent rights of the kingdom; and the authority of parliament was scarcely sufficient to protect him from their vengeance, which proceeded to such acts of violence, that after the mob had pillaged his house, and attempted his life, he was obliged to seek an asylum in Germany, where he was very kindly received. After residing for some time at Tubingen, where people flocked from all quarters for the benefit of his advice, he was encouraged to return to Paris, but had scarcely resumed his accustomed pursuits, when the religious commotions which broke out in that city, obliged him again to leave it, after seeing his house a second time pillaged. He now retired to Orleans, and afterwards to Lyons, where his enemies procured him to be imprisoned. On being released, he returned to Paris, where new troubles awaited him. He first became obnoxious to the Jesuits, whose society was now rising into consequence, and who wanted to be permitted to establish a college for education. This was opposed by the university oY Paris, and Du Moulin supported their opposition. The Jesuits, however, backed by the ciL.nceilor Hospital, gained their point, as the parliament was induced to believe that the mode of education among the Jesuits would be an effectual check to the introduction of the new errors, i. e. the principles of the reformation.

The next opportunity which Du Moulin had to give his advice, was attended with more serious consequences to him. The council of Trent had just broken up, anrl the question was, whether its proceedings should be recognized in France. The papal ambassadors, and those of the most powerful princes in Europe, were for this measure but it was opposed by the leading members of the French king’s administration, who were of opinion that it would render those civil dissentions which had been in some degree quieted, and that the council of Trent had made certain regulations contrary to the liberties and royal privileges of France, which they could by no means approve. In a council held at Fontainbleau, Feb. 27, 1564-, this subject occasioned a very warm altercation between the chancellor Hospital and the cardinal of Lorraine; and chiefly by the persuasive influence of the former, it was determined that the proceedings of the council of Trent should not be published in France. Du Moulin, being solicited for his advice on this occasion, published his “Conseil sur le fait du, Concile de Trente,” Lyons, 1564, 8vo, in which he takes a very enlarged view of all the decrees of that memorable council, and shews them to be at variance with the opinions of the fathers of the church, and hostile to the liberties of France. The warmth of his temper leading him to use the plainest expressions, as was the custom with the writers of the age, he afforded ample ground for a fresh persecution by his enemies. They now accused him of exciting sedition, and disturbing the public tranquillity, and were so successful in these misrepresentations, that some of those who were the first to advise him to publish the above work, now gave him up, and even the parliament with all the esteem which most of the members entertained for him, was obliged to issue an order to imprison him, nor did he recover his liberty but upon condition that he should print nothing without the king’s permission. Scarcely had he escaped from this danger, when he was attacked by the protestant party, who forgetting his services in the common cause against the see of Rome, could never forgive him for having deserted the profession he once made of being an adherent of Calvin, and ordered his works to be burnt at Geneva. He had indeed about this time given them more reason than they ever had before, by representing their ministers as coming into France for no other purpose than to introduce a spirit of discord and insubordination, and under pretence of an imaginary liberty, to reduce the constitution of the kingdom to a republican form.

While the public was interested with these contests, Du Moulin was released from any farther concern in them. He died Dec. 27, 1566, surrounded, we are told, by three doctors of the Sorbonne, to whom, in his last moments, he explained the mysterious doctrine of predestination with great clearness and precision. Thuanus says that he had some time before his death become a genuine catholic, for which he assigned as a reason the factious conduct of many of the reformed.

Du Moulin was not only one of the most profound lawyers, but one of the most learned men of his time, and his works were long held in the highest estimation, while the study of law, upon liberal principles, was encouraged in France. Bernardi, one of the writers in the “Biog. Universelle,” published in Ib 14, has ventured to entertain hopes that the happy event of that year which restored to France her legitimate sovereign, would also restore to her that system of laws which had so long been her glory and happiness; and in that hope (too soon disappointed) he predicts that the reputation of Du Moulin would revive. Du Moulin’s works, most of which were published separately, were collected in 1612, in an edition of a vols. folio, and again, in 1654, in 4 vols.; but the most valuable is that of Paris, 1681, 5 vols. folio, edited by Francis Pinson. In 1773, Garrigan, a bookseller of Avignon, issued a prospectus for a new edition, which has not yet appeared. This prospectus contained an eloge on Du Moulin, which Henrion de Pensey pronounced in an assembly of the advocates, and had prefixed to his edition of the “Analyse des Fiefs,” taken from Du Moulin’s commentary on the law of Paris. Several other writers have written the life of this very eminent jurist, particularly Brodeau, 1654, 4to.

, a very celebrated French protestant minister, and of the same family with Charles da Moulin, was born at Vexin Oct. 18, 1568. He imbibed the rudiments of literature at Sedan; and, when he arrived at twenty years of age, was sent to finish his education in England, where he became a member of Christ college in Cambridge. After a residence of four years in England, he went to Holland in the retinue of the duke of Wirtemberg, but was shipwrecked in his passage, and lost all his books and baggage. This occasioned his elegant poem entitled “Votiva Tabula,” which did him great credit, and procured him many friends. The French ambassador became one of his patrons (for Henry IV. at that time sent protestant ambassadors into protestant countries), and recommended him to the queen- mother, by whose interest he obtained the professorship of philosophy at Leyden, then vacant. This he held for five or six years; and among other disciples, who afterwards became celebrated, be had Hugo Grotius. He read lectures upon Aristotle, and disciplined his scholars in the art of disputing; of which he made himself so great a master, that he was enabled to enter with great spirit and success into the controversies with the catholics. Scaliger was very much his patron; and when Du Moulin published his Logic at Ley. den in 1596, said of the epistle prefatory, “haec epistola non est hujus sevi.” He taught Greek also in the divinity schools, in which he was extremely well skilled, as appears from his book entitled “Novitas Papismi,” where he exposes cardinal Perron’s ignorance of that language.

In 1599 he went to Paris, to be minister at Charenton, and chaplain to Catharine of Bourbon, the king’s sister, who was then married to Henry of Lorraine, duke of Bar, and continued a determined protestant in spite of all attempts to convert her. The pope applied to Henry IV. concerning the conversion of his sister, and Henry employed his divines to argue with her; but Du Moulin strengthened her sentiments against all their artifices. Perron and Cotton were the men chiefly employed, with whom Du Moulin had frequent conflicts; and when Henry begged her only to hear his chaplains preach, she consented to hear father Cotton, who was immediately ordered to preach before the king and his sister in the very place where Du Moulin had preached before. On this occasion, to secure herself the better against the wiles of this Jesuit, she contrived to have Du Moulin so placed that he might hear all that Cotton said.

Though Henry IV. did not much relish Du Moulin’s endeavours to convert his sister, yet he had always a great regard for him, of which Du Moulin retained a very grateful remembrance; and after the death of Henry, in 1610, he publicly charged the murder of that monarch upon Cotton and the whole order of Jesuits. It had been said that Ravillac was excited to that desperate act by some opinions derived from the writings of the Jesuits, of Mariana in particular, touching the persons and authority of kings: upon which account father Cotton published an “Apologetical Piece,” to shew that the doctrine of the Jesuits was exactly conformable to the decrees of the council of Trent. This was answered by Du Moulin in a book entitled “Anticotton or, a Refutation of Father Cotton” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Jesuits were the real authors of that execrable parricide though some indeed have doubted whether he was the author of that book. In 1615, James I. who had long corresponded with Du Moulin by letters, invited him to England; but this invitation his church at Paris would not suffer him to accept till he had given a solemn promise, in the face of his congregation, that he would return to them at the end of three months. The king received him with great affection took him to Cambridge at the time of the commencement, where he was honoured with a doctor’s degree and, at his departure from England, presented him with a prebend in the church of Canterbury. Du Moulin had afterwards innumerable disputes with the Jesuits, who, when they found him deaf to their promises of great rewards, attempted more than once his life, so that he was obliged at length always to have a guard. In 1617, when the United Provinces desired the reformed churches of England, France, and Germany to send some of their ministers to the synod of Dort, Du Moulin and three others were deputed by the Gallican church, hut were forbidden to go by the king upon pain of death. In 1618 he had an invitation from Leyden to fill their divinity chair, which was vacant, but refused to accept of it. In 1620, when he was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from Britain at the court of France, asked him to write to king James, and to urge him, if possible, to undertake the defence of his son-in-law the king of Bohemia, who then stood in need of it. Du Moulin at first declined the office; but the ambassador, knowing his interest with James, would not admit of any excuse. This brought him into trouble; for it was soon after decreed by an order of parliament, that he should be seized and imprisoned, for having solicited a foreign prince to take up arms for the protestant churches. Apprised of this, he secretly betook himself to the ambassador lord Herbert, who suspected that his letters to the king were intercepted; and who advised him to fly, as the only means of providing for his safety. He went to Sedan, where he accepted the divinity-professorship and the ministry of the church; both which he held to the time of his death, which happened March 10, 1658, in his ninetieth year. He took a journey into England in 1623, when cardinal Perron’s book was published against king James; and, at that king’s instigation, undertook to answer it. This answer was published at Sedan, after the death of James, under the title of “Novitas Papismi, sive Perronii confutatio, regisque Jacobi, sed magis sacrae veritatis de-< fensio.” He was the author of many other learned works, of whiph the principal are, “The Anatomy of Arminianism;” “A Treatise on the Keys of the Church” “The Capuchin, or History of the Monks” “A Defence of the Reformed Churches,” &c. &c.

, son of the preceding, and a clergyman of the church of England, was born at Paris, about 1600. He studied at Leyden, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of divinity. He afterwards came to England, and was incorporated in the same degree at the university of Cambridge. He was patronized by Richard, earl of Cork, who appointed him governor to his sons, whom he afterwards accompanied to Oxford. Here Du Moulin remained two years or more, and preached frequently in the church of St. Peter in the East. After the restoration of Charles II. he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, and a prebendary of Canterbury, in which city he spent the remainder of his life. He died in 1684, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was author of several works, of which we may mention, 1. “The Peace of the Soul;” a translation of which was published by Dr. John Scrope, in 1765, 2 vols. 2. “A Defence of the, Protestant Religion.” Of this book the reader may see a curious account in Gent. Mag. vol. XLIII. p. 369. He was author of the famous work entitled “Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Coelum,” which was published at the Hague, in 1652, by M. Alexander More. Anthony Wood gives him the character of an honest, zealous Calvinist. He had a younger brother, Lewis Du Moulin, who settled also in England, where he long distinguished himself by his violent and illiberal writings against the church of England, the titles of which are given by Wood; but he retracted many of his opinions in the presence of Dr. Burnet, at the time of his death, Oct. 20, 1683.

, a learned English divine, born in 1578, at Dorney in Buckinghamshire, was the son of the rev. Lawrence Mountague, vicar of that place. He was educated at Eton school, on the foundation, and was elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1594, where he obtained a fellowship. After taking his bachelor’s degree in 1598, and that of M. A. in 1602, he entered into orders, and obtained the living of Wotton-Courtney in the diocese of Wells, and also a prebend of that church. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, says that his next promotion was to a fellowship of Eton college, where he assisted sir Henry Savile in preparing his celebrated edition of St. Chrysostom’s works; and in 1610, he published there, in 4to, “The two Invectives of Gregory Nazianzen against Julian,” with the notes of Nonnus; but although the latter part of this may be true, he was not chosen fellow of Eton until April 29, 1613, in which year also (May 14) he was inducted into the rectory of Stamford Rivers in Essex, then in the gift of Eton college. On the death of Isaac Casaubon, he was requested by the king to write some animadversions on the Annals of Baronius, for which he was well qualified, having made ecclesiastical history very much his study from his earliest years. He had in fact begun to make notes on Baronius for his private use, which coming to the ears of the king, James I., himself no contemptible theologian, he intimated his pleasure on the subject to Mr. Mountagu, who began to prepare for the press in 1615. He was at this time chaplain to his majesty, and the following year was promoted to the deanery of Hereford, which he resigned soon after for the archdeaconry, and was admitted into that office Sept. 15, 1617. In July 1620, he proceeded bachelor of divinity, and with his fellowship of Eton held, by dispensation, a canonry of Windsor.

In 1621, he preached a sermon before the king at Windsor, upon Ps. 1. 15, in which there were some expressions supposed by some of his hearers to favour the Romish doctrine of invocation of saints; and this obliged him to publish his sentiments more fully in a treatise On the Invocation of Saints,“which, although he fancied it a complete defence, certainly gave rise to those suspicions which his enemies afterwards urged more fully against him. The same year, he published his” iatribae upon the first part of Mr. Selden’s History of Tythes.“In this work he endeavours, and certainly not unsuccessfully, to convict Selden of many errors, and of obligations to other authors which he has neglected to acknowledge. The king, at least, was so much pleased with it, as to order Selden to desist from the dispute. It appears by this work that Mr. Mountagu availed himself of many manuscripts which he had been at the expence of procuring from abroad, and it is said that there were a great many of these in his library when he died, but that they were taken away by Millicent, his chaplain, who became a Jesuit. In 1622 he published his animadversions on the annals of Baronius, under the title of” Analecta Ecclesiasticarum Exercitationum," fol.

In 1624 he became involved in those controversies and imputations on his character as a divine, which, more or less, disturbed the tranquillity of the whole of his life. They were occasioned by the following circumstance:?. Some popish priests and Jesuits were executing their mission at Stamford -Rivers, in Essex, of which he was then rector; and to secure his flock against their attempts, he ]eft some propositions at the place of their meeting, with an intimation that, if any of those missionaries could give a satisfactory answer to the queries he had put, he would immediately become their proselyte. In these, he required of the papists to prove, that the present Roman church is either the catholic church, or a sound member of the catholic church that the present church of England is not a true member of the catholic church and that all those points, or any one of those points which the church of Rome maintains against the church of England, were, or was, the perpetual doctrine of the catholic church, the decided doctrine of the representative church in any general council, or national approved by a general council, or the dogmatical resolution of any one father for 500 years after Cnrist. On their proving all this in the affirmative, he promised to subscribe to their faith. Instead, however, of returning any answer, a small pamphlet was left at last for him, entitled “A new Gag for the old Gospel.” To this he replied, in “An Answer to the late Gagger of the Protestants,” 1624, 4to, which gave great offence to the Calvinists, at that time a very numerous and powerful party in the church, and thus drew upon him enemies from a quarter he did not expect: and their indignation against him ran so high, that Ward and Yates, two lecturers at Ipswich, collected out of his book some points, which they conceived to savour of popery and Arminianism, in order to have, them presented to the next parliament. Mountagu, having procured a copy of the information against him, applied to the king for protection, who gave him leave to appeal to himself, and to print his defence. Upon this, he wrote his book entitled “Appello Ccesarem a just Appeal against two unjust Informers” which, having the approbation of Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, whom king James ordered to read, and give his sense of it, was published in 1625, 4to, but addressed to Charles I. James dying before the book was printed off.

In this work many of the acknowledged doctrines of the church of England are undoubtedly maintained with great force of argument, but there are other points in which he afforded just ground for the suspicions alleged against him; and that this was the opinion of many divines of that period appeared from the answers to his “Appeal” published by, It Dr. Matthew Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter. 2. Mr. Henry Burton in his “Plea to an Appeale,” Lond. 1626, 4to. 3. Mr. Francis Rous, afterwards provost of Eton college, in his “Testis Veritatis,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 4. Mr. John Yates, B. D. formerly fellow of Emanuel college in Cambridge, afterwards minister of St. Andrew’s in Norwich, in his book entitled “Ibis ad Caesarem,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 5. Mr. Anthony Wotton, professor of. divinity in Gresham college. 6. Dr. Daniel Featly, in his “Pelagius Redivivus; or, Pelagius raked out of the ashes by Arminius and his scholars,” ibid. 1626, 4to. This book contains two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians; the other between the church of Rome, the appealer, Mr. Mountagu, and the church of England, in three columns; together with a writ of error sued against the appealer. 7. Dr. George Carleton, bishop of Chichester, in his “Examination of those things, wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doc-” trines of the church of England," ibid. 1626, 4to.

The controversy, however, was not to be left to divines, who may be supposed judges of the subject. The parliament which met June 18, 1625, thought proper to take up the subject, and Mr. Mountagu was ordered to appear before the House of Commons, and being brought to the bar July 17, the speaker told him, that it was the pleasure of the House, that the censure of his books hould be postponed for some time; but that in the interim he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. He was afterwards obliged to give the security of 2000l. for his appearance. The king, however, was displeased with the parliament’s proceedings against our author and bishop Laud applied to the duke of Buckingham in his favour Mr. Mountagu also wrote a letter to that duke, entreating him to represent his case to his majesty; and this application was seconded some few days after by a letter of the bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and St. David’s, to the duke. In the next parliament, in 1626, our author’s Appello Ca3sarem“was referred to the consideration of the committee for religion, from whom Mr. Pym brought a report on the 18th of April concerning several erroneous opinions contained in it. Upon this it was resolved by the House of Commons, 1.” That Mr. Mountagu had disturbed the peace of the church, by publishing doctrines, contrary to the articles of the church of England, and the book of homilies. 2. That there are clivers passages in his book, especially against those he calleth puritans, apt to move sedition betwixt the king and his subjects, and between subject and subject. 3. That the whole frame and scope of his books is to discourage the well-affected in religion from the true religion established in the church, and to incline them, and, as much as in him lay, to reconcile them to popery." And accordingly articles were exhibited against him; but it does not appear, that this impeachment was laid before the House of Lords, or in what manner the Commons intended to prosecute their charge, or how far they proceeded. Rush worth, after much inquiry, could not find that Mr. Mountagu was brought to his defence, or that he returned any answer to the articles.

This prosecution from the parliament seems to have recommended him more strongly to the court, for, in 1628, he was advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, on the death of one of his opponents, Dr. Carleton. On August 22, 1628, the day appointed for his confirmation, a singular scene took place. On such occasions it is usual to give a formal notice, that if any person can object either against the party elected, or the legality of the election, they are to come and offer their exceptions at the day prefixed. This intimation being given, one Mr. Humphreys, and William Jones, a stationer of London, excepted against Mountagu as a person unqualified for the episcopal function, charging him with popery, Arrninianism, and other heterodoxies, for which his books had been censured in the former parliament. Fuller tells us, “that exception was taken at Jones’s exceptions (which the record calls 4 prætensos Articulos)' as defective in some legal formalities. I have been informed,” continues he, “it was alledged against him for bringing in his objections viva vocc, and not by a proctor, that court adjudging all private persons effectually dumb, who speak not by one admitted to plead therein. Jones returned, that he could not get any proctor, though pressing them importunately,” and profering them their fee to present his exceptions, and therefore was necessitated ore tenus there to alledge them against Mr. Mountagu. The register mentioneth no particular defects in his exceptions; but Dr. Rives, substitute at that time for the vicar- general, declined to take any notice of and concludeth Jones amongst the contumacious, e quod nullo modo legitime comparuit, nee aliquid in hac partejuxta Juris exigentiam diceret, exciperet, vel opponeret.' Yet this good Jones did bishop Mountagu, that he caused his addresses to the king to procure a pardon, which was granted unto him, in form like those given at the coronation, save that some particulars were inserted therein, for the pardoning of all errors heretofore committed either in speaking, writing, or publishing, whereby he might hereafter be questioned."

With the bishopric of Chichester, he was allowed to hold the rectory of Petworth, and having now a protection from his enemies, he applied himself closely to his favourite study of ecclesiastical history; and first published his “Originum Ecclesiasticarum Apparatus,” at Oxford, 1635, which was followed in 1636 by his “Originum Ecclesiasticarum, Tomus Primus,” Lond. fol. In 1638, on the promotion of Dr. Wren to Ely, bishop Mountagu was translated to Norwich. Although now in a bad state of health, from an aguish complaint, he continued his researches into ecclesiastical history, and published a second volume under the title of “Theanthropicon; seu de vita Jesu Christi originum ecclesiasticarum libri duo. Accedit Groecorum versio, et index utriusque partis,” Lond. 1640. He died April 13, 1641, and was interred in the choir of Morwich cathedral. * After his death appeared a posthumous work, “The Acts and Monuments of the Church before Christ incarnate,” 1642, fol. with the singularity of a dedication to Jesus Christ, in Latin, which he had himself prepared. In 1651 also was published his “Versio et notae in Photii epistolas,” Gr. Lat. fol.

Bishop Mountagu was allowed by his opponents to be a man of extensive learning, particularly in ecclesiastical history; but of a warm temper, and from his attachment to the writings of the fathers, holding some peculiar opinions, which were acceptable neither to churchmen or sectaries. Fuller says of him, that “his great parts were attended with a tartness of writing; very sharp the nib of his pen, and much gall in the ink, against such as opposed him. However, such the equability of this sharpness of his style, he was impartial therein: be he ancient or modern writer, papist or protestant, that stood in his way, they should equally taste thereof.” Selden was one of those against whom he exercised not a little of this sharpness of style; and yet, which is a considerable testimony in his favour, “he owns him to have been a man well skilled in ancient learning.”

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, an English lawyer, and classical editor, the son of Richard Mounteney of Putney in Surrey, was born there in 1707, and educated at Eton school, whence he went, in 1725, to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1729, and A. M. 1735, and obtained a fellowship. He then studied law in the Inner Temple, and became, in 1737, one of the barons of the exchequer in Ireland. In 1743 he distinguished himself in the famous trial between James Annesley, esq. and Richard earl of Anglesey. In 1759 he married the countess dowager of Mount Alexander, and died in 1768. To these scanty memoirs, we have only to add that, in 1731, he published the first edition of his “Select Orations” of Demosthenes, which has been often reprinted, but seldom with accuracy. The best part of the work is the critical observations upon the Ulpian commentary by Dr. Chapman, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge; and perhaps the most curious is his dedication to the deceased sir Robert Walpole, in the edition of 1748. It was to the Walpoles he owed his promotions. In 1748 he also published “Observations on the probable issue of the Congress,” 8vo, printed by Mr. Bowyer. Mounteney’s Demosthenes was long a favourite book with the university students to give up, as it is called, on their examinations, but at Oxford it has of late been rejected by the examiners, as an insufficient proof of classical proficiency.

, a French mathematician, born in the province of Auvergne about 1643, became a professor of rhetoric and mathematics in different seminaries belonging to the Jesuits, and was at length appointed professor- royal at the university of Toulouse. He died, in 1713, a sacrifice to his exertions in the cause of humanity, during the dreadful pestilential disorder which then raged at Toulouse. To very profound as well as extensive erudition, he united the most polished and amiable manners, and the most ardent piety, which made him zealous in his attempts to reform the age in which he lived. He was a considerable writer: his most celebrated pieces are, “New Elements of Geometry, comprised in less than fifty Propositions;” “A Parallel between Christian Morality and that of the Ancient Philosophers;” “An Explanation of the Theology of the Pythagoreans, and of the other learned Sects in Greece, for the Purpose of illustrating the Writings of the Christian Fathers” and “A Treatise on French Poetry.”

, an ingenious and learned English writer, was son of sir Walter Moyle, and born in Cornwall in 1672. After he had made a considerable progress in school-learning, he was sent to Oxford; and thence removed to the Temple, where he applied himself chiefly to such parts of the law as led to the knowledge of our constitution and government; “for there was a drudgery,” says Mr. Hammond, “in what he called law-lucrative, which he could never submit to.” He came into the world with a firm zeal for the protestant settlement, and a great contempt of those who imagined that the liberty of our constitution and the reformation could subsist under a popish king; nor did he ever vary from these sentiments. From the Temple he removed to Covent- Garden, in order to be nearer the polite and entertaining part or the town and here it was, as Dryden observes in his “Life of Lucian,” that “the learning and judgment above his age, which every one discovered in Mr. Moyle, were proofs of those abilities he has shewn in his country’s service, when he was chosen to serve it in the senate, as his father sir Walter had done.”

In 1697 he joined with Mr. Trenchard in writing a pamphlet entitled “An Argument, shewing that a standing Army is inconsistent with a free Government, and absolutely destructive to the constitution of the English Monarchy.” The same year, at the request of Dr. Davenant, he translated Xenophon’s “Discourse upon improving the Revenue of the State of Athens,” and sent it to him, to be annexed to his “Discourses on the public Revenues and Trade of England.” Moyle tells Davenant, in the dedication of this translation, that he “fancies it Will be no unwelcome entertainment to him, to find his own admirable observations upon these matters confirmed by the authority of one of the greatest men that ever antiquity produced, and the only ancient author upon this subject which is now extant. This admirable maxim, that the true wealth and greatness of a nation consists in numbers of people well-employed, is every where inculcated throughout the whole course of this treatise.” And I believe,“he adds,” Xenophon was the first author that ever argued by political arithmetic, or the art of reasoning upon things by figures; which has been improved by some able heads of our own nation, and carried to the highest perfection by your own successful inquiries.“As to the translation, Davenant has given the following account of it in the thirty-fourth page of his work:” It was made English by a young gentleman, whose learning and ripe parts promise greater matters hereafter; since, in his first essay, he has shewn himself so great a master, both in his own and the Greek language. And it is hoped this example will excite other persons of his age, rank, and fortune, to study the business of trade, and the revenues of their country. The original is highly esteemed by all the learned world; and the reader will find Xenophon has suffered nothing in this version."

He was for some time a member of parliament for the borough of Saltash, where he always acted a very honourable and disinterested part; but he was so bent upon his private studies, that he never had any relish for that station. His favourite study was history; from which he collected and loved to speculate upon the forms, constitutions, and laws, of governments. In parliament he appeared, however, most to advantage in questions respecting the improvement and regulation of trade, foreign and domestic; the employment of the poor, which has so near a connection with the augmenting of our domestic trade: and he took great patois in promoting a bill for the encouraging of seameo y and the effectual and speedy manning of the royal navy.

He afterwards retired to his seat at Bake in Cornwall, where, it is said, he read all the original authors, both Greek and Latin, that is, those who wrote before the birth of Christ, and about 440 years after. From the year 440 to 1440 was a long, but dark period of time; and he aimed only to preserve a thread of the history of that middle age. The schoolmen and scholastic divinity which flourished then, be neglected; but it appears, that, in the latter part of his life, he extended his researches to ecclesiastical history. It was his custom frequently to make a review of the best systems in all sciences, being used to say, that 41 it was necessary for every man who applies himself to matters of learning, to have a general knowledge of the elements of them;" and hence he was incessantly collecting fundamental maxims, and forming divisions in all parts of learning. Early in life he contrived a scheme of so disposing books in his library, that they might give him, even by their disposition, a regular and useful view of all the several walks of learning and knowledge. In order to this, a distribution was made of them into four grand divisions; the first containing theology, the second law, the third arts and sciences, and the fourth history. He penetrated deep into all the authors he read; and he was very nice in the choice of them. An exactness of reasoning was his peculiar talent, to which was joined an uncommon vivacity of expression. He used often to regret the not having the advantage of travelling abroad; but, to make amends for this, he read the best accounts he could get of all the parts of the world, and made his reflections upon them.

Mr. Moyle died June 9, 1721, aged forty-nine. In 1726 his unpublished Works were printed in 2 vols. 8vo, and dedicated to his brother Joseph Moyle, esq. by Thomas Serjeant, esq. The first volume contains, l.“An Essay upon the Constitution of the Roman Government, in two parts.” 2. “A Charge to the Grand Jury at Leskard, April 1706.” 3. “Letters to Dr. William Musgrave, of Exeter, upon subjects of Criticism and Antiquity.” 4. “A Dissertation upon the Age of Philopatris, a dialogue, commonly attributed to Lncian, in several letters to Mr. K.” 5. “Letters from and to Mr. Moyle upon various subjects.” The second volume contains, 1. “Remarks upon Prideaux’s Connection of the Old and New Testament, &c. in several letters between the doctor and himself.” In Prideaux’s third letter to his cousin Moyle, for so he addresses him, he tells him that “he is sure his book will no where find a more observing and judicious reader than himself; that he had sufficient experience of this in his learned remarks on the former part; and that they had instructed him for the making of seme alterations against another edition:” and, in a fourth letter, he “thanks him heartily for the observations he had sent him of his mistakes, in the last part of his history. I must confess,” says he, “That about Octavius’s posterity is a very great one. It is a downright blunder of my old head, and I am glad so accurate and learned a reader has not observed more of them. This makes me hope that no more such have escaped me.” This volume also contains, 2. “The Miracle of the Thundering Legion examined, in several letters between Mr. Moyle and Mr. K.” On this subject Mr. Moyle was completely sceptical.

In 1727 was published by his friend Antony Hammond, esq. a third volume, in 8vo, entitled “The whole Works of Walter Moyle, esq. that were published by himself.” The editor complains that, “when his. posthumous works came from the press, these valuable tracts of his, which were printed in his life-time, and passed his last hand, should be dropt, as it were, in oblivion, as they must have been, had they been covered in those volumes, wherein they were by himself originally interspersed; and observes, that the principal intention of collecting them was to do justice to the memory of Mr. Moyle.” We have already mentioned two of the pieces which compose this volume; the rest are, “An Essay on the Lacedemonian Government, addressed to Antony Hammond, esq. in 1698.” “Translations from Lucian,” first printed in 17 10. “Letters between Mr. Moyle and several of his friends,” first printed in 1695. There is also a translation of Lucian’s “Philopatris,” by Dr. Drake, which is here inserted, on account of there being so much criticism concerning it in the first volume of Mr. Moyle’s posthumous works above mentioned.

, a political character, was born at Lanerk, in Scotland, 1573, and, while very young, became one of the pages to king James, and afterwards one of the gentlemen of his privy chamber. In that station he continued many years, and became well acquainted with most of the secrets at court. He was present with king James at Perth, 1600, when the famous conspiracy of the earl of Gowry took place; but the account he has given us of that problematical affair contains nothing either interesting or satisfactory. He accompanied king James into England, where he remained some years; but afterwards returned to Scotland, and spent his days in retirement. He kept a diary of what passed at court, the ms. of which is now in the advocates’ library in Edinburgh; and an edition of it was printed in 1753, under the title of “Memoirs of the affairs of Scotland from 1577 to 1603, with a discourse on the conspiracy of Cowrie,” Edin. 12mo. It contains many curious particulars, which have not been taken notice of by general historians. He died at Edinburgh, 1630, aged fifty-seven.

, an eminent musician, was the son of Leopold Mozart, vice-chapel-master to the prince archbishop of Salzburg. This Leopold, who was born at Augsburg in 1719, became early in life a musician and composer; and in 1757 published a treatise on the art of playing the violin; but what, according to Dr. Burney, did him most honour was his being father of such an incomparable son as Wolfgang, and educating him with such care. His son was born at Salzburg, Jan. 17, 1756, and at seven years old went with his father and sister to Paris, and the year following to London. In 1769 he went to Italy; and in 1770 he was at Bologna, in which city Dr. Burney first saw him, and to which city he had returned from Rome and Naples, where he had astonished all the great professors by his premature knowledge and talents. At Rome he was honoured by the pope with the order of Speron d'Oro. From Bologna he went to Milan, where he was engaged to compose an opera for the marriage of the princess of Modena with one of the archdukes. Two other composers were employed on this occasion, each of them to set an opera; but that of the little Mozart, young as he was, was most applauded.

During his residence in London, which was when he was but eight years old, he evinced his extraordinary talents and profound knowledge in every branch of music, was able to play at sight in all keys, to perform extempore, to modulate, and play fugues on subjects given in a way that there were very few masters then in London able to do. But there is in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. LX, (for 1770) a minute and curious account, by the Hon. JDaines Barrington, of the musical feats of this child in London, during 1765, when he was no more than eight years and five months old, to which we refer our readers. His progress in talents and fame, contrary to all experience, continued to keep pace with the expectations of the public to the end of his life.

He went again to Paris soon after his return from Italy. But on the death of his father in 1778, he was called to Salzburg, and appointed principal concert-master to the prince archbishop, in his stead; but he resigned this office in 1780, and went to Vienna, where he settled, and was admired and patronized by the court and city; and in 1788 he was appointed chapel-master to the emperor Joseph. His first opera at Vienna was the “Rape of the Seraglio,” in 1782, to German words. The second, “Le Nozze di Figaro,” in four acts. The third, the “Schauspiel Director,” or the Manager at the Playhouse, in 1786. “II Don Giovanni,” in 1787. “La Clemenza di Tito,” a serious opera. “Cori Fantutti,” comic. “Flauto Magico.” “Idomeneo,” a serious opera, &c. It was not till 1782 that he began to compose at Vienna for the national theatre; at first chiefly instrumental music; but on its being discovered how well he could write for the voice, he was engaged by the nobility and gentry first to compose comic operas, sometimes to German words, and sometimes to Italian. His serious operas, we believe, were all originally composed to Italian words. There is a chronological list of his latter vocal compositions till the year 1790 in Gerber’s Musical Lexicon.

In England we know nothing of his studies or productions, but from his harpsichord lessons, which frequently came over from Vienna; and in these he seems to have been trying experiments. They were full of new passages, and new effects; but were wild, capricious, and not always pleasing. We were wholly unacquainted with his vocal music till after his decease, though it is manifest that by composing for the voice he first refined his taste, and gave way to his feelings, as in his latter compositions for the piano forte and other instruments his melody is exquisite, and cherished and enforced by the most judicious accompaniments, equally free from pedantry and caprice.

Dr. Burney observes, that the operas of this truly great musician are much injured by being printed in half scores, with so busy and constantly loaded a part for the piano forte. Some of the passages we suppose taken from the instrumental parts in the full score; but there is no contrast; the piano forte has a perpetual lesson to play, sometimes difficult, and sometimes vulgar and common, which, however soft it may be performed, disguises the vocal melody, and diverts the attention from it, for what is not worth hearing. A commentary, says the same author, on the works of this gifted musician, would fill a volume. His reputation continued to spread and increase all over Europe to the end of his life, which, unfortunately for the musical world, was allowed to extend only to 36 years, at which period he died, in 1791.

, an eminent mechanist, was born at Exeter, September 1715. He was the second son of the rev. Zachariah Mudge, prebendary of Exeter, and vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, who died April 3, 1769, and was honoured by Dr. Johnson with a very elegant testimony of respect, which was inserted in the London Chronicle at that time, and may be seen in Mr. Boswell’s Life of the doctor. Mr. Z. Mudge had three other sons besides the subject of this article. The eldest, Zachariah, was a surgeon and apothecary at Taunton, and afterwards surgeon on board an East Indiaman; he died in 1753 on ship-board, in the river Canton in China. The third, the rev. Richard Mudge, was officiating minister of a chapel of ease at Birmingham, and had a small living presented to him by the earl of Aylesford. He was not only greatly distinguished by his learning, but by his genius for music. He excelled as a composer for the harpsichord; and as a performer on that instrument is said to have been highly complimented by Handel himself. The fourth son, John, was originally a surgeon and apothecary at Plymouth, but during the latter part of his life practised as a physician with great success. Like his brother Thomas, he had great mechanical talents; and, until prevented by the enlargement of his practice, he found time to prosecute improvements in rectifying telescopes. In 1777 the Royal Society adjudged to him Sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal, for a paper which he presented to that learned body on the best methods of grinding the specula of reflecting telescopes. He also considerably improved the inhaler, an ingenious contrivance for the curing of coughs, by inhaling steam. In 1777 he published “A Dissertation on the inoculated Small-pox;” which was followed, some years after, by “A Treatise on the Catarrhous Cough and Vis Vitae.” He died in 1792. It was to this gentleman, Mr. Boswell informs us, that Dr. Johnson, during his last illness, addressed many letters on his case.

Soon after the birth of Thomas, his father was appointed master of the free grammar-school at Biddeford, in the north of Devonshire, whither he removed with his family; and here, under his own immediate care, his son Thomas received his education. At a very early period of life he gave strong indications of that mechanical genius by which he has since been so eminently distinguished; for, while he was yet a school-boy, he could with ease take to pieces a watch, and put it together again, without any previous instruction. At the age of fourteen he was bound apprentice to Mr. George Graham, watch-maker, a distinguished philosopher, and the most celebrated mechanic of his time. He soon attracted the particular attention of his master, who so highly estimated his mechanical powers, that, upon all occasions, he assigned to him the nicest and most difficult work; and once, in particular, having been applied to by one of his friends to construct a machine new in its mechanical operation, his friend, some time after it had been sent home, complained that it did not perform its office. Mr. Graham answered, that he was very certain the complaint could not be well founded, the work having been executed “by his apprentice, Thomas;” and, indeed, it appeared, upon examination, that Mr. Graham was fully justified in this implicit confidence in his apprentice, the work having been executed in a very masterly manner, and the supposed defect arising entirely from the unskilful management of the owner.

On the expiration of his apprenticeship, Mr. Mudge took lodgings, and continued to work privately for some years. About 1757 he married Miss Hopkins, the daughter of a gentleman at Oxford. The circumstance which first rescued him, as it were, from obscurity, is very remarkable: Mr. Ellicot, who was one of the most distin ­guished watch-makers of his time, and who had been often employed by Ferdinand VI. king of Spain, was desired by that prince to make him an equation watch. Mr. Ellicot, not being able to accomplish the undertaking, applied to Mr. Shovel, an ingenious workman, to assist him; but he also being unequal to the task, mentioned it to Mr. Mudge, with whom he was very intimate, and who readily undertook to make such a watch. He not only succeeded to his own satisfaction, but to the admiration of all who had the opportunity of inspecting it. This watch having been made for Mr. Ellicot, his name was affixed to it (as is always customary in such cases), and he assumed the whole merit of its construction. An unfortunate accident, however, did justice to the real inventor: Mr. Ellicot being engaged, one day, in explaining his watch to some men of science, it happened to receive an injury, by which its action was entirely destroyed; and he had also the mortification to find, upon inspecting the watch, that he himself could not repair the mischief. This compelled him to acknowledge that Mr. Mudge was the real inventor of the watch, and that to him it must be sent to be repaired.

This transaction having by some means come to the knowledge of his Catholic majesty, who was passionately fond of all mechanical productions, and particularly of watches, that monarch immediately employed his agents in England to engage Mr. Mudge to work for him; and such was his approbation of his new artist’s performances, that he honoured him with an unlimited commission to make for him at his own price, whatever he might judge most worthy of attention. Accordingly, among the several productions of Mr. Madge’s genius which thus became the property of the king of Spain, was an equation watch, which not only shewed the sun’s time, and mean time, but was also a striking watch and a repeater; and what was very singular, and had hitherto been unattempted, it struck and repeated by solar, or apparent time. As a repeater, moreover, it struck the hours, quarters, and minutes. From a whim of the king’s this watch was made in the crutch end of a cane, in the sides of which were glasses covered with sliders, on the removal of which the work might be seen at any time; and his majesty being very fond of observing the motion of the wheels at the time the watch struck, it was his practice as he walked, to stop for that purpose. Those who have seen him on these occasions, observed that he ever showed signs of the most lively satisfaction. The price of this watch was 480 guineas, which, from the expensive materials and nature of the work, afforded Mr. Mudge but a moderate profit for his ingenuity; and he was strongly urged by several of his friends to charge 500 guineas for it, which the king would have readily paid. To this Mr. Mudge answered, that, “as 480 guineas gave him the profit to which he was fairly entitled, as an honest man, he could riot think of increasing it, and he saw no reason why a king should be charged more than a private gentleman.” Indeed the king of Spain had such a high opinion of his integrity, that he not only used to speak of him as by far the most ingenious watchmaker he had ever employed, but excelling also in his sense of honour and justice. Mr. Townsend, then secretary to the embassy at Madrid, once told Mr. Mudge that his Catholic majesty had often expressed to him his great admiration of his character, and would frequently ask his assistance to enable him to express the name of Mudge.

In 1750, Mr. Mudge entered into partnership with Mr. William Dutton, who had also been an apprentice of Mr. Graham’s, and took a house in Fleet-street, opposite Water-lane. In 1760, an event happened which he ever considered as one of the most fortunate in his life. This was his introduction to the count de Bruhl, who first came to England that year, as envoy extraordinary from the court of Saxony. This nobleman, who to many other valuable qualities united great knowledge of mechanical operations, ever after treated Mr. Mudge with the most generous and condescending friendship; evincing on every occasion the most ardent zeal for his fame and fortune, by the most active services. About this period Mr. Mudge appears to have first turned his thoughts to the improvement of time-keepers; for, in 1765 he published a small tract entitled “Thoughts on the Means of improving Watches, and particularly those for the use of the Sea.” In 1771 he quitted business, and retired to Plymouth, that he might devote his whole time and attention to the improvement and perfection of the important subject of this pamphlet. Having some years afterwards completed one time-keeper, he put it into the hands of Dr Hornsby, Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. After this gentleman had tried it for four months, during which time it went with great accuracy, it was committed to the care of Dr. Maskelyne, to be tried at Greenwich. After it had been, under his care a considerable time, the Board of longitude, by way of encouraging Mr. Mudge to make another, so as properly to become a candidate for the rewards promised in the act of parliament, thought proper to give him 500l. it being expressly required by the act, that two time-keepers should be made upon the same principles, and both tried at the same time, that if each should go with the required degree of exactness, it might with the more certainty appear to result from the perfection of the principles upon which they were constructed, and not from accident.

The first time-keeper, after it had been tried by Mr. Maskelyne, astronomer-royal, was in possession of M. de Zach (astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha) from May 1786 to July 1788, during which time he carried it from London to Gotha, thence to Hieres, thence by sea to Genoa, thence by land to Pisa, Milan, and back to Hieres. At the end of about a year’s absence from Gotha (to which he returned by Geneva) after having travelled over several thousand miles, he found that it had preserved the same regularity of going which it had when it first came into his possession; and by its very great accuracy, he was enabled to ascertain the longitude of several places with a greater degree of precision than had ever been done before.

In 1784 and 1785, this time-keeper was carried two royages to Newfoundland by the late admiral Campbell, and in each voyage went so well as to determine the longitude within one mile and a quarter on the first voyage, and to six miles and an eighth on the second. In consequent e of this, it was the admiral’s opinion that such time-keepers were capable of answering every nautical purpose tin; could be required of them. After Mr. Mudge had received the 5001. instead of making only one more time-keeper, which would have been sufficient to answer the purposes of the act, he immediately set about making two, and when completed, they likewise^ pursuant to the act, underwent a trial by the astronomer-royal.

In July 1790, the year’s trial required by the act expired, about a fortnight previously to which a board of longitude was held, when Dr. Maskelyne’s report of the going of the time-keepers was so favourable, that it was declared that directions should be given at the next board to apply to the admiralty for a ship, in which they might be sent to sea, in further compliance with the act. At the meeting of the next board, however, Dr. Maskelyne produced certain calculations, in order to prove that neither of them had gone within any of the limits of the act; and therefore at another board held the same year, it was determined that no further trial of them should take place. This occasioned an unpleasant controversy, which will be found discussed in “A narrative of facts relative to the Time-­keepers constructed by Mr. Thomas Mudge, by Thomas Mudge, jun. of Lincoln’s-inn:” Dr. Maskelyne’s “Answer to a Narrative of Facts,” &c. and Mr. Mudge’s “Reply,” with which the dispute ended.

In July 1791, Mr. Thomas Mudge, jun. presented from his father a memorial to the Board of longitude, stating, that although his time-keepers, during the period of their public trial, had not been adjudged to go within the limits prescribed by act of parliament, yet as the honourable board were of opinion that they were superior to any that had hitherto been invented, and were constructed upon such principles as would render them permanently useful; as the memorialist, moreover, had employed near twenty years to bring them to the perfection they possessed; and as the first time-keeper made by him had been going upwards of sixteen years, with such an uniform degree of excellence as evidently to prov6 that the principles upon which his time-keepers were constructed were permanent in their nature; therefore the memorialist trusted that the honourable board would exercise the powers vested in them hy parliament, and give to him, upon his making a discovery of the principles upon which his time-keepers werd constructed, such a sum of money as his invention and great labours should appear to deserve. This memorial being unsuccessful, Mr. Mudge in 1792 presented a petition to the same effect to the House of Commons, which, owing to the lateness of the session, could not then be considered; but in the next, Mr. Mudge 1 s merit appeared so clearly to the house, that they were pleased to vote him, in the most honourable manner, and by a great majority, the sum of 2500l. which, with 500l. given him before by the board of longitude, made in the whole 3000l.

He did not long survive this honourable testimony to the utility of his mechanical labours. He died on the 14th of November 1794, in the eightieth year of his age, at the house of his eldest son, Mr. Thomas Mudge, in Newington-place, Surrey. On the death of his wife, in 1789, he had given up house-keeping, residing afterward, sometimes with his eldest son in London, and sometimes in the country with his other son, the rev. John Mudge, M. A. rector of Lustleigh, and vicar of Bramford Speke, both in Devonshire. To speak of Mr. Mudge, in general terms only, as the first watchmaker of his age, would be unjust. Besides his superior merits in bringing time-keepers to a greater degree of perfection than had been hitherto attained, he has done the mechanical world no small service by the invention of a scapement for pocket- watches, which is one of the most considerable improvements that have been introduced for many years.

Two anecdotes deserve to be recorded, as striking proofs of Mr. Mudge’s great mental powers: count Bruhl, when he first came to England in his diplomatic capacity, brought an ingenious watch from Paris, made by the celebrated Bertoud, intending it as a present to his majesty. This watch, however, not performing its offices, was sent back to the inventor, in or$|er to be rectified. After its return, it still continued imperfect; and, on further applications to M. Bertoud, that artist acknowledged, with great candour, that, although he thought the principles on which his watch was constructed were good, he was himself unable to carry them into effect. The count then applied to Mr. Mudge, requesting him to undertake the task but, deeming it an indelicate circumstance to interfere with the inventions of another artist, Mr. Mudge expressed the greatest reluctance on the occasion. The importunity of the 'count, however, added to the gratitude which he feit for the distinguishing marks of esteem he had already received, induced Mr. Mudge, at last, to wave his objections; and he had the satisfaction to be completely successful. The other anecdote relates to a large and complicated watch belonging to his majesty, which had long gone so ill that it had been repeatedly put into the hands of the most distinguished watchmakers, to be repaired; all of whom, though confident in their abilities to give it the requisite perfection, had been obliged to abandon the watch as incapable of amendment. It was then put into the hands of Mr. Mudge, who happily succeeded. This circumstance gave his majesty a very high opinion of his superiority over every other watch maker. In 1777, he appointed him his watchmaker, and often honoured him with conferences on mechanical subjects. Her majesty likewise expressed a great esteem, not only for his talents as an artist, but for his character as a man. At one time, she presented him with fifty guineas for only cleaning a watch; and it was through her recommendation to the lord chancellor, that his second son obtained the living of Bramford Speke, as he did afterward that of Lustleigh through count BruhPs interest with the hon. Percy Charles Wyndham, brother to the earl of Egremont.

We shall close these memoirs in the words of his excellency the count de Bruhl: Mr. Mudge “was a man whose superior genius as an artist, united with the liberality of a mind replete with candour, simplicity, modesty, and integrity, deserve the highest admiration and respect; whose name will he handed down to the remotest posterity, with the same veneration which attends the names of his predecessors in the same line, Tompion, Graham, and Harrison, who, while living, were admired by their contemporaries, and whose fame adds to the splendour and glory of this great nation.”

, Hebrew professor of the Royal College of France, and one of the ablest scholars in that language, was born at Orleans in 1587. Few particulars are known of his life, except that he was educated for the church, and attained the preferments of canon and archdeacon of Soissons. His skill in the Hebrew language made him be considered as a proper person to succeed Cayet as Hebrew professor, and he was accordingly promoted by his majesty to that office in July 1614. He fulfelled its duties with great reputation for thirty years, and died in 1644, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. Dupin says, that he joined to a perfect knowledge of the Hebrevr, a solid and acute judgment, and wrote in a pure, concise, and easy style, and had such acquaintance with sacred history, and the fundamentals of religion, that few could be better qualified to interpret scripture. The most esteemed of his works is his commentary on the Psalms, “Commentarius litteralis et historicus in omnes Psalmos,” &c. 1630, fol. His whole works were published in two volumes folio, at Paris, 1650, including the above on the Psalms: his “Varia Sacra,” explaining the most difficult passages of the Old Testament from Genesis to Judges: his “Assertio yeVitatis Hebraicae,” against father Morin, &c. &c.

, an eminent school -master, was descended from an ancient family in Cumberland. His father, William Mulcaster, resided at Carlisle, where, according to Wood, his son Richard was born. He was educated on the foundation at Eton, whence, in 1548, he gained his election to King’s college, Cambridge. Here he took no degree, but while scholar removed to Oxford; for what reason we know not. In 1555, he was elected student of Christ-Church; and, in the next year, was licensed to proceed in arts, and became eminent for his proficiency in Eastern literature. He began to be a teacher about 1559, and on Sept. 24, 1561, for his extraordinary accomplishments in philology was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors’ school, then just founded; and he provided the first usher, and divided the boys into forms, &c. In this school he passed nearly twenty-six years; a severe disciplinarian, according to Fuller, but beloved by his pupils when they came to the age of maturity and reflected on the benefit they had derived from his care. Of these, bishop Andrews appears always to have preserved the highest respect for him, had his portrait hung over his study-door, behaved with great liberality to him, and by his will bequeathed a handsome legacy to his son. In April 1594, he was collated to the prebendal-stall of Gatesbury in the cathedral of Sarum; and, in 1596, he resigned the mastership of Merchant Taylors. The company were desirous that he should remain with them; but Fuller has recorded that he gave for answer, Fidelis semus, perpetuus asinus; and it appears from Mr. Wilson’s History that he had at last reason to think himself slighted. With his profession he certainly was not dissatisfied, nor, able to give it up for when he left the Merchant Taylors, he was chosen, in the same year, 1596, upper master of St. Paul’s School, in which office he remained for twelve years, and then retired to the rich rectory of StamfordRivers, in Essex, to which he had been instituted at the presentation of the queen. His retirement might also have been hastened by the loss of an affectionate wife, as well as by the decaying state of his own health; for, two years after putting up a plate with an inscription to her memory, in the church of Stamford, he died April 15, 1611, and was buried in the same church, but without any memorial.

Of his private character few particulars have been preserved: his temper was warm, but not hasty; and though. Fuller has accused him of using his scholars too harshly, we may make some allowance when we find he was educated under the same master with Ascham, Dr. Nicholas Udall, whose severity he perhaps imbibed. Like Ascham, he was fond of archery, a science once of national concern, and was a member of a society of archers, called Prince Arthur’s Knights, from that prince (brother of Henry VIII.), who was so fond of this amusement that his name became the proverbial appellation of an expert bowman. Mulcaster was an adherent of the reformed religion, a man of piety, and “a priest in his own house, as well as in the temple.” As a scholar he ranks high. His English productions boast an exuberance of expression not often found in the writers of his day; and his Latin works, not inelegant, were celebrated in their times. He enjoyed, likewise, very high reputation as a Greek and Oriental scholar, and on this last account was much esteemed by the celebrated Hugh Broughton.

He appears to have been early addicted to dramatic composition, and occurs among those who assisted in the plays performed before queen Elizabeth in 1572 and 1576. Whether he was a student of the classic drama, or still adhered to the Gothic spectacles, is a desideratum; but it is highly probable that he united both. In 1575, when Elizabeth was on one of her progresses at Kenelworth, Mulcaster produced some Latin verses which were spoken before her, and have been printed in Gascoyne’s “Princely Pleasures at Kenelworth,” and in Mr. Nichols’s “Progresses of queen Elizabeth.” They are short and easy, but, as was usual with the court productions of the time, completely mythological. In 1580, he prefixed some commendatory verses to Ocland’s “Anglorum proelia,” and others, two years afterwards, to his “Eifwaf%ia” More, perhaps, may be found in the works of his contemporaries: but we must not omit to notice his verses to queen Elizabeth on her skill in music, printed in Tallis and Bird’s tf Discantus Cantiones," &c. 1575, 4to, and inserted by Bailard in his memoirs of queen Elizabeth.

His separate works were his “Positions, wherein those primitive circumstances be examined which are necessarie for the training up of children, either for skill in theire book, or health in their bodie,” Lond. 1581, 1587, 4to. To this a second part was promised, which seems to have been completed in 1582, by the publication of “the first part of the Elementarie, which entreateth chefely of the right writing of the English Tung.” These contain some peculiarities of spelling, and innumerable quaintnesses of writing, joined to many judicious crsticisms on the English language. By the spelling he seems frequently anxious to fix the pronounciation of his words, and in some parts we may be inclined to think he was desirous that his words should be written as they are spoken. In 1601, he published his “Catechismus Paulinus, in usum scholas Paulinae conscriptus, ad formam parvi illius Anglici catechismi qui pueris in comruuni precum Anglicarum libro ediscendus proponitur,” 8vo. This is in long and short verse, sometimes closely, and at others diffusely, translated; and, though now forgotten, was once in high esteem. Among the letters at Penshurst, is one from Mulcaster to sir Philip Sidney, in Latin, dated Nov. 3, 1575, the year sir Philip went upon his travels. In the Harleian Mss No. 6996, is a letter from Edward Heyborn to the lord-keeper, in behalf of Richard Mulcaster, who begged his interest to secure to him the prebend of Gatesbury, which, we have already noticed, he received. And in ms. Smith, in the Bodleian library, No. Ixxvii. p. 397, is one from Mulcaster to Peter Junius, in Latin, dated May 13, 1604.

, a German divine, whose surname was Greiffenhagen, was a native of Pomerania, and born in 1630. He studied at Rostocb, and at the age of sixteen was distinguished for his compositions in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin poetry. After this he pursued his studies with great success at Gripswald, Konigsberg, and Wittemberg, and became so completely master of the Oriental languages, that, according to Moreri, he was invited to England by Walton and Castell to assist in his famous Polyglott bible; but in what department his services were employed is not mentioned in the usual histories of that undertaking. Moreri says he lived ten years in CastellV house, where his application was so intense that when Charles II. made his triumphal entry into London, he would not go to the window to look at it. After his return to Germany, he became inspector at Bernau, and provost at Berlin. He found the duties of these offices incompatible with his oriental studies, resigned them in a short time, and devoted himself wholly to his favourite pursuits. At Stettin, whither he retired, he published, with observations, specimens of the Lord’s Prayer, in sixty-six alphabets. He was intimately acquainted with the Chinese, and promised to draw up a * Clavis Sinica,“which he thought would enable a person of ordinary capacity to read Chinese and Japanese books in the course of a few months; but this work never appeared. He died in 1694, and by his last will bequeathed his Chinese printing materials to the library at Berlin. He was author of many very learned works particularly” Abdallae Beidavei Historia Sinensis Persice et Latine cum notis“” Monumentum Sinicum cum Commentario“”Hebdomas Observationum de rebus Sinicis,“in 1674, Col. Brand, 4to.” Æconomia Bibliothecae Sinicse “Symbola Syriaca, cum duabus Dissertationibus,” Syr. Lat. Berol. 4to. Some of his works were collected together and published in 1695, with the title of “Mulleri Opuscula nonnulla Orientalia.”

, a celebrated German traveller and writer, was born in 1705, in Herforden, in Westphalia, and was educated at the age of seventeen at llinteln and Leipsic, at which last place he so distinguished himself, that professor Mencke obtained for him the place of adjunct in the historical class of the academy founded at Petersburgh by Peter the Great. In tbat city he was some time employed in teaching Latin, geography, and history, and as assistant secretary to the institution. In 1728, he was made under-keeper of the imperial library, and in 1730 he was chosen professor of history. He now applied for leave of absence, in order to gratify his wish of seeing foreign countries. In the year 1731 he visited London, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and after his return to Petersburgh he was appointed to accompany Gmelin and De l'Isle de la Croyere on their travels through Siberia, which occupied ten years, during which they travelled 4480 German miles, or more than three times that number of English miles. An account of their travels was published by Gmelin, in four volumes, 8vo. After this, Mullef, who was not rewarded in any degree equal to the labours and sufferings which he had undergone, undertook, at the desire of prince Jusupof, “A Dissertation on the Trade of Siberia,” which, though written, or at least begun, in 1744, was not published till 1750, and then only the first part. In 1747, he was appointed historiographer of the Russian empire, and in 1754 he was nominated by the president to be the secretary of the Academy of Sciences, and was employed in superintending the publication of their transactions, and in other literary undertakings. In 1763, he was appointed director ^of the school for foundlings, established by Catherine at Moseow, and in 1766, he was appointed keeper of the archives in that city, with an additional salary of 1000 roubles. From this period till his death, which took place in 1783, he devoted himself entirely to the pursuits of literature, having been previously raised to the rank of counsellor of state, and invested with the order of Wladimir. Mr. Coxe, in his Travels, vol. I. in speaking of Muller, who was then living, says, “He collected during his travels the most ample materials for the history and geography of this extensive empire, which was scarcely known to the Russians themselves before his valuable researches were given to the world in various publications. His principal work is” A Collection of Russian Histories,“in nine volumes octavo, printed at different intervals at the press of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The first part came out in 1732, and the last in 1764. This storehouse of information pnd literature in regard to the antiquities, history, geography, and commerce of Russia, and many of the neighbouring countries, conveys the most indisputable proofs of the author’s learning, diligence, and fidelity. To this work the accurate and indefatigable author has successively added many other valuable performances upon similar subjects, both in the German and Russian languages, which elucidate various parts in the history of this empire.” Mr. Coxe adds, that he spoke and wrote the German, Russian, French, and Latin tongues, with surprizing fluency; and read the English, Dutch, Swedish, Danisn, and Greek, with great facility His memory was surprising; and his accurate acquaintance with the minutest incidents of the Russian annals almost surpassed belief. His collection of state papers and manuscripts were all arranged in the exactest order, and classed into several volumes, distinguished by the names of those illustrious personages to whom they principally relate; such as Peter L, Catherine I. Menzikof, Osterman, &c."

, commonly called Regiomontanus, from his native place, Mons Regius, or Koningsberg, a town in Franconia, was born in 1436, and became the greatest astronomer and mathematician of his time. He was indeed a very prodigy for genius and learning. Having first acquired grammatical learning in his own country, he was admitted, while yet a boy, into the academy at Leipsic, where he formed a strong attachment to the mathematical sciences, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, &c. But not finding proper assistance in these studies at this place, he removed, at only fifteen years of age, to Vienna, to study under the famous Purbacb, the professor there, who read lectures in those sciences with the highest reputation. A strong and affectionate friendship soon took place between these two, and our author made such rapid improvement in the sciences, that he was able to be assisting to his master, and to become his companion in all his labours. In this manner they spent about ten years together, elucidating obscurities, observing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and comparing and correcting the tables of them, particularly those of Mars, which they found to disagree with the motions, sometimes as much as two degrees.

About this time the cardinal Bessarion arrived at Vienna, to negociate some affairs for the pope, and being a lover of astronomy, soon formed an acquaintance with Purbich and Regiomontanus. He had begun to form a Latin version of Ptolomy’s Almagest, or an Epitome of it; but not having time to go on with it himself, he requested Purbach to complete the work, and for that purpose to return with him into Italy, to make himself master of the Greek tongue, which he was as yet unacquainted with. To these proposals Purbach only assented, on condition that Regiomontanus would accompany him, and share in all the labours, which were, however, soon interrupted by the death of Purbach, which happened in 1461. The whole task then devolved upon Regiomontanus, who finished the work at Rome, to which city he accompanied the cardinal Bessarion, and applied himself diligently to the study of the Greek language; not neglecting, however, to make astronomical observations, and compose various works in that science, as his <f Dialogue against the Theories of Cremonensis.“The cardinal going to Greece soon after, Regiomontanus went to Ferrara, where he continued the study of the Greek language under Theodore Gaza; who explained to him the text of Ptolomy, with the commentaries of Theon; till at length he could compose verses in Greek, and read it critically. In 1463 he went to Padua, where he became a member of the university; and, at the request of the students, explained Alfraganus, an Arabian philosopher. In 1464 he removed to Venice, to meet and attend his patron Bessarion. Here he wrote, with great accuracy, his” Treatise of Triangles,“and a” Refutation of the Quadrature of the Circle," which Cardinal Cusan pretended he had demonstrated. The same year he returned with Bessarion to Rome where he made some stay, to procure the most curious books those he could not purchase, he took the pains to transcribe, for he wrote with great facility and elegance; and others he got copied at a great expence. For as he was certain that none of these books could be had in Germany, he intended, on his return thither, to translate and publish some of the best of them. During this time too he had a warm contest with George Trapezonde, whom he had greatly offended by animadverting on some passages in his translation of Theon’s Commentary.

Having now procured a great number of manuscripts, which was one great object of his travels, he returned to Vienna, and for some time read lectures; after which he went to Buda, on the invitation of Matthias king of Hungary, who was a patron of learned men, and had founded a rich and noble library there, from the purchase of the Greek books found on the sacking of Constantinople, and others brought from Athens, or wherever else they could be met with through the whole Turkish dominions. But a war breaking out in this country, he retired to Nuremberg, which he preferred, because the artists there were dextrous in fabricating his astronomical machines, and he could from thence easily transmit his letters by the merchants into foreign countries. Being now well versed in all parts of learning, and made the utmost proficiency in mathematics, he determined to occupy himself in publishing the best of the ancient authors, as well as his own lucubrations. For this purpose he set up a printing-house, and formed a nomenclature of the books he intended to publish, which still remains.

Here Bernard Walther, one of the principal citizens, who was well skilled in the sciences, especially astronomy, cultivated an intimacy with Regiomontanus; and as soon as he understood those laudable designs of his, he took upon himself the expence of constructing the astronomical instruments, and of erecting a printing-house. And first he ordered astronomical rules to be made of tin, for observing the altitudes of the sun, moon, and planets. He next constructed a rectangular, or astronomical radius, for taking the distances of those luminaries. Then an armillary astrolabe, such as was used by Ptolomy and Hipparchus, for observing the places and motions of the stars. Lastly, he made other smaller instruments, as the torquet, and Ptolomy’s meteoroscope, with some others which had more of curiosity than utility in them. From this apparatus it evidently appears, that Regiomontanus was a most diligent observer of the laws and motions of the celestial bodies, if there were not still stronger evidences of it in the accounts of the observations themselves which he made with them.

With regard to the printing-house, which was the other part of his design in settling at Nuremberg, as soon as he hadcompletedit, he put to press two works of his own, besides “The New Theories” of his master Purbach, and the “Astronomicon” of Manilius. His own were, the “New Calendar,” in which were given the true conjunctions and oppositions of the luminaries, their eclipses, their true places every day, &c. His other work was his “Epbemerides,” of which he thus speaks in the said index “The Ephemerides, which they vulgarly call an Almanac, for 30 years where you may every day see the true motion of all the planets, of the moon’s nodes, with the aspects of the moon to the sun and planets, the eclipses of the luminaries; and in the fronts of the pages are marked the latitudes.” He published also most acute commentaries on Ptolomy’s Almagest: a work which cardinal Bessarion so highly valued, that he scrupled not to esteem it worth a whole province. He prepared also new versions of Ptolomy’s Cosmography and at his leisure hours examined and explained works of another nature. He inquired how high the vapours are carried above the earth,which he fixed to be not more than 12 German miles; and set down observations of two comets that appeared in 1471 and 1472.

In 1474, pope Sixtus the 4th conceived a design of reforming the calendar; and sent for Regiomontanus to Rome, as the most proper person to accomplish his purpose, who, although much engaged in his studies, and printing, at length consented to go. He arrived at Rome in 1475, but died there the year after, at only forty years of age; not without a suspicion of being poisoned by the sons of George Trapezonde, or Trapezuntius, whose father is said to have been killed by the criticisms of Regiomontanus on his translation of Ptolomy’s Almagest.

Purbach was the first who reduced the trigonometrical table of sines, from the old sexagesimal division of the radius, to the decimal scale; but Regiomontanus brought this to a much greater degree of perfection. He also introduced the tangents into trigonometry, and enriched that science with so many theorems and precepts, that if we except the use of logarithms, the trigonometry of Regiomontanus is but little inferior to that of our own time. His treatise, both on “Plane and Spherical Trigonometry,” in 5 books, was written about 1464, and printed at Nuremberg in 1533, folio. In the fifth book are various problems concerning rectilinear triangles, some of which are resolved by means of algebra; a proof that this science was not wholly unknown in Europe, before the treatise of Lucas de Burgo.

Regiomontanus was the author of some other works besides those before mentioned. Peter Ramus, in -the account he gives of him, tells us, that in his work-shop at Nuremberg-, was an automaton in perpetual motion; that he made an artificial fly, which taking its flight from his hand, would fly round the room, and at last, as if weary, would return to his master’s hand; that he fabricated an eagle, which, on the emperor’s approach to the city, he sent out, hi< r h in the air, a great way to meet him, and that it kept him company to the gate of the city. “Let us no more wonder,” adds Ramus, “at the dove of Archytas, since Nuremberg can shew a fly, and an eagle, armed with geometrical wings. Therefore, those famous artificers, who were formerly in Greece, and Egypt, are no longer of any account, since Nuremberg can boast of her Regiomontanuses. For the senate and people of this city did all in their power to have a continual succession of RegiomontaDuses. For Wernerus first, and then the Schoneri, father and son, afterwards revived the spirit of Regiomontanus.”

, a celebrated German enthusiast, called sometimes Moncerus and Monetardus, was born at Stollberg in the Hartz, towards the end of the fifteenth century. His father is said to have been executed for some crime, and on this account the son was thought desirous of taking his revenge on the government of Stollberg. He studied probably at Wirtemberg, and acquired that knowledge in divinity which Melancthon praises, and which appears in his writings. By his own account he taught, in early life, in the schools of Aschersleben and Halle in Saxony; and most probably he was then in orders. It is certain, however, that he soon became attached to the mystics, and entertained the wildest notions of fanaticism, which pleased the lower classes of the people, while he preached at Stollberg and Zwickau, where he was settled as a preacher in 1520. Here, while he was violent against popery, he was as little contented with the progress of Luther’s reformation; the church, he maintained, was but half reformed, and a new and pure church of the true sons of God remained to be established. About this time he connected himself with Nicholas Storck, a leader among the baptists, who pretended to have communications with the Almighty, and to hold greater purity of doctrine than the r^st of the party. Muncer was a convert to his notions, and became ardent in making proselytes. He maintained that for men to avoid vice, they must practise perpetual mortification. They must put on a grave countenance, speak but little, wear a plain garb, and be serious in their whole deportment. Such as prepared their hearts in this manner, might expect that the Supreme Being would direct all their steps, and by visible signs discover his will to them; if that illumination be at any time withheld, he says we may expostulate with the Almighty, and remind him of his promises. This expostulation will be acceptable to God, and will at last prevail on him to guide us with the same unerring hand which conducted the patriarchs of old. He also maintained, that all men were equal in the sight of God, and that, therefore, they ought to have all things in common, and should on no account exhibit any marks of subordination or pre-eminence. With these sentiments he endeavoured to establish in Alstadt a new kingdom upon earth, or a society of pious, holy, and awakened people. With these people he was accused, in 1524, of having plundered a church in a neighbouring village, burnt a chapel, and committed many other outrages; and as the affair made a great noise, he was cited to answer to the charges at Weimar; but finding that the utmost severity was to be used against him, he remained at Alstadt, where his companions were so riotous, that he was under the necessity of removing to a distance. After some little time he settled at Nuremberg, where he published a vehement censure upon Luther, which, with some irregularities, occasioned his expulsion by the government. Taking then a journey into Swabia, he found every where numerous and attentive hearers. His stay in Swabia gave rise to the report that he was the author of the famous twelve articles of the peasants; but his biographer endeavours to prove that he had no part in the insurrection which broke out in that part of the country. In the beginning of 1525, he returned back into Saxony, and was received with great favour by the citizens of Muhlhausen, and, against the consent of their council, appointed their preacher. Here his influence soon became predominant: the old council was entirely set aside, and a new one chosen: the monks were driven away, and their estates sequestered. Muncer himself was elected into the council, and proposed an equal communication of property, and similar reforms, agreeable to the taste of the people. The tumults in Swabia and Franconia were the signal ta Muncer to attempt the same in Thuringia. Churches, monasteries, castles, were plundered and the success attending these first attempts increased the popular fury and the monks, the nuns, and the nooility, were the particular objects of their resentment. It is unnecessary to repeat here the history of these troubles; suffice it, that Muncer was at last overpowered in 1526, and put to death. At his execution he is said to have shewn signs of penitence.

His biographer says that among his writings, three on the establishing of the new reform at Alstadt, are of considerable value, and strives to prove that the grounds of Luther’s opposition to these changes lay in his consent not being first requested; from which he looked upon them as an inroad into his reformation; but it is more consistent to infer that Luther was fearful of the consequences which must attend the impetuosity of Muncer. His biographer has accumulated testimonies of Muncer’s learning, given by Melanchthon, Luther, Spangenberg, Camerarius, and others; and from his own writings on faith, on the scriptures, and on baptism. He also gives some proofs of the dreadful oppressions under which the peasants laboured in the time of Muncer; from which there may be reason to conclude that an explosion would have taken place even if Muncer had not existed. This is not improbable, for men of Muncer’s turbulent disposition generally mix something that is real with their imaginary complaints and ambitious designs.

, is celebrated by Meres, amongst the comic poets, as the best plotter; and a few of his dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dramatica, are occasionally to be met with and purchased as curiosities. He appears to have been a writer through a very long period, there being works existing published by him for the booksellers, which are dated in 1580 and 1621, and probably both earlier and later than those years. He frequently employed his talents on the translation of romances, but with little spirit or fidelity. He rendered himself more celebrated in his day as the author of the city pageants, from 1605 to 1616. In 1582 he detected the treasonable practices of Edmund Campion, and his confederates, of which he published an account, wherein he is styled “some time the pope’s scholler allowed in the seminarie at Roome.” The publication of this pamphlet brought down upon him the vengeance of his opponents, one of whom, in an answer to him, has given his history in these words:

“Munday was first a stage-player, after an apprentise, which tyme he wel served with deceaving of his master, then wandring towardes Italy, by his own report became a cosener in his journey. Comming to Rome, in his short abode there, was charitably relieved, but never admitted in the seminary, as he pleseth to lye in the title of his booke, and being wery of well doing returned home to his first vomite, and was hist from his stage for his folly. Being therby discouraged he set forth a balet against plays, though (o constant youth) he afterwards began again to ruffle upon the stage. I omit (continues this author) among other places his behaviour in Barbican with his good mistress and mother. Two things, however, must not be passed over of this boy’s infelicitie, two several ways of late notorious. First he writing upon the death of Everard Haunse, was immediately controled and disproved by one of his owne batche, and shortly after setting forth the apprehension of M. Campion was disproved by George (I was about to say Judas) Eliot, who writing against him, proved that those things he did were for lukers sake only, and not for the truthe thogh he himself be a person of the same predicament, of whom I muste say that if felony be honesty, then he may for his behaviore be taken for a lawful witness against so good men.”

It will take from the credit of this narrative to observe, that our author was, after this time, servant to the earl of Oxford, and a messenger of the queen’s bed-chamber, posts which he would scarcely have held had his character been so infamous as is represented above.

This author, of whom various particulars, with specimens of his works, may be seen in our authorities, died m his eightieth year, Aug. 10, 1633, and was buried in the parish church of St. Stephen, Coleman-street, with a monument, on which he is styled citizen and draper of London, and a learned antiquary. It appears that he collected the arms of the county of Middlesex, lately transferred from sir Simeon Stuart’s library to the British Museum and was in 1618 the editor of a reprint of Stow’s “Survey of London,” with additions.

, or Mondino, a physician deservedly celebrated in the dark ages, was born at Milan, according to Freind and Douglas, and flourished early in the fourteenth century. He held the professorship of medicine at Bologna in 1316, and enjoyed an extensive reputation throughout Italy, principally for his anatomical pursuits, in which, however, Eloy thinks he shewed more zeal than success, although he was the first among the moderns who dissected human bodies. He was the author of a work, entitled “Anatomia omnium humani Corporis interiorum Membrorum,” first printed at Pavia in 1478, in fol. reprinted at least fourteen times, the last in 1638, 12mo, with various commentaries. It is a methodical treatise, very copious upon the subject of the viscera, in the description of which he introduced many original observations, but passes lightly over the subject of the nerves and blood-vessels. With all its errors, which are very copious, it conferred a real benefit on the infant science, and the statutes of Padua, and some other medical schools of Italy, prohibited the use of every other work, as a text-book for the students of anatomy. Mundinus died at Bologna, Aug. 30, 1318, and was buried in the church of St. Vital.

, a celebrated military officer, was born at New Huntorf, in the county of Oldenburgh, in 1683. He was the son of a Danish officer, and received an excellent education. When only seventeen he entered into the service of the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt. He was present at the siege of Landau, and learned the art of war under the duke of Marlborough and prince Eugene. He was always remarkable for his braveryj for which, at the battle of Malplaquet, he was made a lieutenant-colonel. In 1716 he quitted the Hessian, and entered into the Polish service; but, in 1721, on some disgust, he went into Russia, and was honourably received by Peter I. After many offices of trust in the army and state, he was made a marshal by the empress Anne, and placed at the head of the war-department; and, in 1737-8, served with great success against the Turks. Soon after the death of the empress, not being appointed generalissimo as he expected, he resigned his employments, but remained in Russia, though strongly invited to the court of Prussia. In 1741 he was arrested, by order of Elizabeth, and, when examined, was so disgusted by the questions proposed to him, that he desired his judges, who appeared resolved to convict him, to put down the answers they wished him to make, and he would sign them. He was thus, after a mock trial, condemned to lose his life; but Elizabeth changed this into perpetual imprisonment, which he suffered for twenty years at Pelim in Siberia. At the accession of Peter III. an order arrived for his release, which so affected him that he fainted away. Departing for Petersburgh, he appeared there in the same sheep-skin dress he had worn during. his captivity. The emperor received him with kindness, and restored him to his former rank. He enjoyed the favour of Peter and Catharine till the time of his death, which happened in October 1767, at the age of eighty -five. He was a man of great talents, and possessed many and distinguished virtues, but he was not without his defects. His faults, however, scarcely injured any but himself, but his excellencies were of vast benefit to Russia. He favoured literature, and frequented the company of learned men. He was acquainted with the arts, for which he had a considerable taste, but he distinguished himself most as a general, and by his knowledge of tactics: he has, however, been accused of exercising too much severity to those who were under his command. It is said that a system of fortifications, and some other writings of count Munich’s have been published, but we have not met with them in this country, nor with a life of him published in German at Oldenburgh in 1803.

, a Spanish historian, was born in 1745 at Museros, a village near Valentia, and studied in the university of Madrid. From his earliest years he discovered a taste superior to what was inculcated in the usual course of academic studies, and made uncommon progress in the sciences and in polite literature. At the age of twenty-two, he wrote prefaces to the Rhetoric of Louis of Grenada, and the Logic of Vernei, in both which he displayed great erudition. He was afterwards, doubtless from having turned his thoughts to that branch, appointed by government cosmographer of the Indies, and filled this office with distinguished ability, until the prime minister Galvez, by order of the king, employed him on a history of America. This undertaking he commenced in 1779, and obtained access, not only to all the papers and documents preserved in the archives of the India department at Madrid, and in the Escurial, but likewise, on a farther recommendation of his Catholic majesty, to all the public and private libraries at Simancas, Seville, Salamanca, Valladolid, Grenada, &c. &c. and even in the Torre di tombo at Lisbon, and other places to which preceding writers had not obtained access. This research occupied above five years, in the course of which he collected a vast mass, in one hundred and thirty volumes, of original and hitherto undescribed documents, letters of Columbus, Pizarro, Ximenes, &c. from which he composed his “Historia del nuovo Mondo,” published at Madrid, 1795, in fol. and which is known in this country by a translation published in 1797, in one vol. 8vo. This volume is divided into six books; in the first two the author describes the imperfect state of geographical knowledge among the ancients the accessions which it received in the middle ages the voyages of discovery made by the French, Portuguese, and Spaniards, previously to the time of Columbus, with the circumstances that produced his conjectures respecting the existence of a new continent, &c. The third and remaining books commence and continue the history of his discoveries to 1500. More of this work, however, has not appeared. The author, we are told, had finished nearly three books of the second volume, at the time of his death, July 19, 1799, and we do not find that he has had a successor, for which perhaps the subsequent political state of his country may account. Before this he acquired great reputation by his other works; namely, 1. “De recto philosophies recentis in theologia 'usu, dissertatio,” Valent. 1767. 2. “De scriptorum gentilium lectione, et profanarum disciplinarum studiis ad Christianaepietatisnormam exigendis,” ibid. 1768. 3. “Institutiones philosophies,” ibid. 1768. 4. “A Treatise on the Philosophy of Aristotle,” &c. 1768, &C.

, an eminent German divine and mathematician, was born at Inghelheim in 1489; and, at fourteen commenced his studies at Heidelberg. Two years after, he entered the convent of the Cordeliers, where he laboured assiduously; yet did not content him self with the studies relating to his profession, but applied himself also to mathematics and cosmography. He was the first who published a “Chaldee Grammar and Lexicon;” and gave the world, a short time after, a “Talmudic Dictionary.” He went afterwards to Basil, and succeeded Pelicanus, of whom he had learned Hebrew, in the professorship of that language. He was one of the first who attached himself to Luther, but meddled little in the controversies of the age, employing his time and attention chiefly to the study of the Hebrew and other Oriental languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He published a great number^ of works on these subjects, of which the principal is a Latin version from the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, with learned notes, printed at Basil in 1534 and 1546. This is thought more faithful than the versions of Pagninus and Arias Montanus; and his notes are generally approved, though he dwells a little too long upon the explications of the rabbins. For this version he was called the German Esdras, as he was the German Strabo for an “Universal Cosmography,” in six books, which he printed at Basil in 1550. He published also a treatise on dialling, in fol. 1536, in which is the foundation of the modern art of dialling a translation of Josephus into Latin “Tabulae novae ad geog. Ptolemaei,” “Rudimenta mathematica,” &c. He was a pacific, studious, retired man, and, Dupin allows, one of the most able men that embraced the reformed religion. For this reason Beza and Verheiden have placed him among the heroes of the reformation, although he wrote nothing expressly on the subject. He died at Basil, of the plague, May 23, 1552.

, a learned Italian antiquary, and one of the most voluminous writers of his age and country, was born at Vignola in the duchy of Modena, Oct. 21, 1672. He was educated at Modena, and his inclination leading him to the church, as a profession, he went through the regular courses of philosophy and divinity, but without neglecting polite literature, to which he was early attached. Bacchiiri recommended the ecclesiastical writers to his attention, and he at length became so devoted to general reading, as to pay little attention to his destined profession. In 1695, the knowledge of books which he had accumulated, procured him the place of one of the librarians of the celebrated Ambrosian collection at Milan; and although he had by this time received his doctor’s degree and been admitted into orders, it was now that he entered upon that course of study and research which distinguished him in future life. His first publication was vols. I and II. of his “Anecdota Latina,” printed at Milan in 1697 and 1698, 4to. In 1700 he went to Modena to take possession of the office of keeper of the archives of the house of Este, and that of librarian to the duke of Modena, his patron. Here he remained for some years, with the exception of an interruption occasioned by the war in 1702, when the French took possession of Modena. The same year that he came here he was editor of “Vita et Rime di Carlo M. Maggi,” printed at Milan, 5 vols. and in 1703 published his “Primi disegni della Republica Letteraria d'ltalia;” this was followed by “Prolegomena, &c. in librum, cui titulus, Elucidatio Augustiniange de divina gratia doctrinae,” Cologn, 1705; “Lettere ai generosi e cortesi Letterati d'ltalia,” Venice, 1705; “Delia Perfetta Poesia Italiana, &c.” 2 vols. a very ingenious dissertation on Italian poetry, which occasioned a prolonged controversy, now no longer interesting. Two editions, however, were afterwards published, with critical notes by Salvini, the one in 1724, 2 vols. 4to. and the other, which is esteemed the best, in 1748. He published also at Bologna in 1707, “Lettera in disesa del March. G. G. Orsi;” and “Introduzione alle paci private,” Modena, 1708. In the same year he first began to write tinder the assumed name of Lamindo Pritanio, “Riflessioni SDpra il buon gusto, &c.” of which a second part appeared at Naples in 1715. After this appeared, under his proper name, “Osservazioni sopra una lettera intitolata, II dominio temporale della sede Apostolica sopra la citta di Comacchio,” &c. Modena, 1708; and “Epistola ad Jo. Albert. Fabricium,” 1709. In this last year he published another of his valuable collections under the title of “Anecdota Grseca,” Gr. & Lat. 4to, which, as well as his “Anecdota Latina,” (completed in 4 vols. at Padua, 1713) were taken from Mss. in the Ambrosian library. He published also before 1715 some other works of lesser value, which, however, showed how intense his labours were, for he had accepted of some preferments in the church, the duties of which he performed with great assiduity, and wai particularly distinguished for his humane care of the poor, who indeed shared the greater part of the profits of his benefices, and the rest went to the repairs or furniture of the churches under his care.

In 1715 and 1716 he visited various libraries in Italy, in order to collect materials for a history of the house of Este, and that of Brunswick which arose from it. In Leibnitz’s works we find a Latin epistle which Muratori addressed to him about 1711, on the connection between the houses of Brunswick and Este; and. he was encouraged in his present inquiries by the duke of Modena, and by George I. king of Great Britain. The result of his labours appeared in 2 vols. fol. under the title of “Del I'Antichita Estense et Italiane,” Modena, 1717 1740. His publications on other subjects, in almost every branch of literature, were exceeding numerous; but referring to Fabroni’s copious catalogue, it may be sufficient in this place to notice only those on which his fame is chiefly founded, and which are still in demand by scholars and antiquaries. These are, 1. “Liturgia Romana vetus, tria Sacrarnentaria compiectens,” Venice, 1748, 2 vois. fol. 2. “De Paradise, regnique celestis gloria liber, ad versus Burnetii librum de statu mortuorum,” Verona, 1738, 4to. 3. “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, post declinationem Romani imperii ad ann. 1500,” Milan, 1738—42, 6 vols. fol. Of this there is an edition printed at Arezzo, 1780, in 17 vols. 4to. It contains many curious dissertations on the manners, government, religion, &c. of the Italians of the darker ages, with a large supplement of charters, chronicles, &c. 4. “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores prsecipui ab anno aerae Christ. D. ad MD.” ibid. 1723 51, 25 vols. usually bound in 28 or 29, fol. Complete copies of this vast work are not easily met with. Tartini’s supplement, in 2 vols. fol. 1748 70, and Mittarelli’s “Accessiones ad script, rerum Italic.” 1771, are necessary to the collection. Gibbon remarks that a volume of chronological and alphabetical tables is still wanting, the work being in a disorderly and confused state. 5. “Novus Thesaurus veterum Inscriptionum,” Milan, 1739 42, 4 vols. fol. This requires Donati’s “Supplement” published at Lucca, 1765, 2 vols. fol. or, with the title of “Veterum Inscriptionum Gr. et Lat. novissimus thesaurus,” 1775, 2 vols. fol. 6. “Dissertazioni sopra le antichita Italiana, da Lod. Ant. Muratori, opera postuma data in luce da Gian. Fran. Soli Muratori,” (his nephew) Milan, 1751, 3 vols. 4to. This has been thrice reprinted, in 4to and 8vo. It is a free translation of the “Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi,” by the author. 7. “Annali d‘ Italia dal principio dell’ era volgare, sino all' anno 1749,” Milan, 1744 49, 12vols.-4to. Of this also there have been several editions and a continuation. The Venetian and Florentine catalogues mention an edition of Muratori’s whole works (we presume those only that are original) which was begun in 1790 at Venice, and extends to 43 vols. 8vo; and another printed at Arezzo, 1767 80, in 36 vols. 4to.

Among the many subjects which engaged the pen of this laborious writer, was that of religion, in which he was so unfortunate as to excite suspicions of his orthodoxy; but although this involved him in temporary controversies, it does not appear that he was brought into very serious trouble. Having thought it necessary to vindicate himself to pope Benedict IV. he appears to have succeeded, and was much esteemed by that pontiff. He was enabled by a course of temperance to enjoy good health to a very advanced period of life, and felt little decay until a few months before his death, Jan. 21, 1750, in his seventyeighth year. During the period of his authorship he enjoyed a most extensive reputation, principally as an antiquary, and carried on a correspondence with the most distinguished men of learning in Europe. He was also a member of many learned societies, and was chosen into our royal society as early as 1717. He has been called the Montfaucon of Italy, and ranks with that eminent antiquary, as having performed the most important services to the history of his country.

, a very ingenious and learned critic, was descended from a good family, and born at Muret, a village near Limoges, in France, April 11, 1526. We know not who were his masters, nor what the place of his education; but it was probably Limoges. JJencius, in his funeral oration on him, and Bullart say that be spent his youth at Agen, where he had Julius Caesar Scaliger for his preceptor; but Joseph Scaliger, his son, denies this, and affirms that Muretus was eighteen when he first came to Agen, to see his father. He adds, that he passed on thence to Auch, where he began to teach in the archiepiscopal college, and to read lectures upon Cicero and Terence. After some stay in this place, he went to Villeneuve; where he was employed by a rich merchant in the education of his children, and at the same time taught Latin in a public school. Two years after his settling here, he went to Agen, to pay a visit to Scaliger, who had the highest opinion and affection for him, and who ever kept up a most intimate correspondence with him. He removed from Villeneuve to Paris, from Paris to Poictiers, from Poictiers to Bourdeaux in 1547, and from Bourdeaux to Paris again in 1552. This year he recited in the church of the Bernardins, his first oration, “De dignitate ac praestantia studii theologici;” and this year also he printed his poems, entitled “Juvenilia;” from the dedication of which we learn, that he taught at that time philosophy and civil law.

It seems to have been the year after, that he was accused of a detestable crime, and thrown into prison. Shame, and the fear of punishment, affected him so, that he resolved to starve himself to death; but he was deterred from this by his friends, who laboured to procure his release, and after much pains, effected it. He could not, however, continue any longer at Paris, and therefore withdrew to Thoulouse, where he read lectures in civil law. But here he was exposed to fresh suspicions; and the accusation brought against him at Paris being renewed, he again fled in 1554, and was condemned to be burned in effigy.

He now retired to Italy, and falling sick at a town in Lombardy, he applied to a physician, who, not understanding his case, called a consultation. As they did not know Muretus, and fancied him too ignorant to understand Latin, they consulted a long time in that language, upon the application of some medicine which was not in the way of regular practice; and agreed at last to try it upon Muretus, saying, “Faciamus periculum in corpore vili;” ;t Let us make an experiment upon this mean subject.“This threat is said to have so far effected a cure, that he paid his host, and set forwards on his journey, as soon as they were withdrawn. This story is told somewhat differently in the first volume of the” Menagiana.“He spent several years at Padua and Venice, and taught the youth in those cities. Joseph Scaliger says that the charge above-mentioned was renewed at Venice, but others caution us against Scaliger’s reports, who had a private pique against Muretus on the following account. Muretus had composed for his amusement some verses entitled” Attius et Trabeas;“which Scaliger supposing to be ancient, cited under the name of” Trabeas,“in his notes upon” Varro de Re Rustica;“but, finding afterwards that he had been imposed on, he removed them from the second edition of his” Varro;" and, to be revenged on Muretus, substituted in their place the following distich against him

Muretus was thirty-four, when the cardinal Hippolite d'Est called him to Rome, at the recommendation of the cardinal Francis de Tournon, and took him into his service: and from that time his conduct was such as to procure him universal regard. In 1562 he attended his patron, who was going to France in quality of a legate a latere; but did not return with him to Rome, being prevailed on to read public lectures at Paris upon Aristotle’s “Ethics;” which he did with singular applause to 1567. After that, he taught the civil law for four years, with a precision and elegance not common with the lawyers of his time. Joseph Scaliger assures us that he had taken the degrees in this faculty at Ascoli. It is related as a particularity in the life of Muretus, that when he first began to read law lectures at Thoulouse, he was so very indifferently qualified for the province he had undertaken, as to provoke the contempt and ridicule of his pupils, which be afterwards changed into admiration, by a very consummate knowledge in his profession. He spent the remainder of his life in teaching the belles-lettres, and explaining the Latin authors. In 1576 he entered into orders, was ordained priest, and devoted himself with zeal to all the exercises of piety. James Thomasius, in a preface to some works of Muretus, printed at Leipsic, says, that this learned man was a Jesuit at the latter end of his life; but for this there seems to be no foundation. He died at Paris, June 4, 1585, aged fifty-nine. He was made a citizen of Rome, (which title he has placed at the head of some of his pieces) probably by pope Gregory XIIL who esteemed him very highly, and conferred many favours on him.

His works were collected, and printed in 5 vols. 8vo, at Verona, in 1727 30; a selection from them by Checotius, in 1741 but the best edition is that of the learned Ruhnkenius, printed at Leyden, in 1789, 4 vols. 8vo. They consist of orations, poems, epistles, various readings, and translations of Greek authors, Aristotle in particular. He composed with great purity and elegance; and he pronounced his orations with a grace which charmed his hearers. His poems, which have been highly applauded, were, as already noticed, published under the title of tf Juvenilia," at Paris, in 1552, and were reprinted in Latin and French, in 1682. He was the editor of several of the classics, which he enriched with notes. All his works are written in elegant Latin, but they are now thought to be more creditable to his judgment than his genius.

, one of the most pleasing painters Spain ever produced, was born at Pilas, near Seville, in 1613, and be.came a disciple of Juan del Castillo, whose favourite subjects were fairs and markets; of which Murillo painted many pictures before he left him to go to Madrid. There he studied and copied the works of Titian, Rubens, and Vandyke, in the royal palaces, and the houses of the nobility; and having very much advanced himself in the knowledge and practice of his art, returned to Seville, where he was employed to paint for most of the principal churches there, as well as at Granada, Cadiz, and Cordova. The style of Murillio is his own. He copied his objects from nature, but combined them ideally; that is, his back-grounds are generally confused and indistinct, and the parts very much blended together, with a loose pencil and indeterminate execution; but most of them have a very pleasing effect, and perhaps the principal objects acquire a degree of finish and beauty from this very circumstance. An instance may be recollected in his very pleasing picture of the good shepherd, an excellent copy of which is at the marquis of Stafford’s gallery. But it was in small pictures of familiar life that this artist most completely succeeded, for in his large pictures, skilfully wrought as they are, he does not appear to have penetrated the arcana of grandeur or style; but in the amiable and tender sentiments which are expressed by the silent actions of the human features, he was eminently successful. He died in 1685.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was born at Clooniquin, in the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, Dec. 27, 1727. His father, Richard Murphy, who was a merchant, perished in 1729, in one of his own trading-vessels for Philadelphia, probably in a violent storm, but no intelligence of the ship, or any of its passengers or crew, ever transpired. From this time the care of the subject of the present article devolved upon his mother, who, in 1735, removed, with her children, to London but Arthur was sent, at the age of ten, to the English college at St. Omer’s, where he remained six years and made very extraordinary proficiency in Greek and Latin, a love for which he retained all his life, and particularly improved his acquaintance with the Latin classics. On his return to England, in 1744, he resided with his mother till August 1747, when he was sent to Cork, to an uncle Jeffery French, in whose counting-house he was employed till April 1749. After this his uncle destined him to go to Jamaica to overlook a large estate which he possessed in that island; but his inclination was averse to business of every kind, and he returned to his mother in London, in 1751. Here he either first contracted, or began at least to indulge, his predominant passion for the theatre, although placed in the counting-house of Ironside and Belchier, bankers. In October 1752, he published the first number of “The Gray’s-Inn Journal,” a weekly paper, which he continued for two years, and which served to connect him much with dramatic performers and writers, as well as to make him known to the public as a wit and a critic. On the death of his uncle, he was much disappointed in not finding his name mentioned in his will, and the more so as he had contracted debts, in faith of a good legacy, to the amount of three hundred pounds. In this embarrassed state, by the advice of the celebrated Foote, he went on the stage, and appeared for the first time in the character of Othello. Jn one season, by the help of strict economy, he paid off his debts, and had at the end of the year four hundred pounds in his pocket. With this sum he determined to quit the stage, on which, as a performer, notwithstanding the advantages of a fine person, and good judgment, he made no very distinguished figure, and never used to be more offended than when reminded of this part of his career.

He now determined to study the law; but on his first application to the society of the Middle-Temple, he had the mortification to be refused admission, on the ground of his having acted on the stage; but was soon after, in 1757, received as a member of Lincoln’s-Inn. In this year he was engaged in a weekly paper, called “The Test,” undertaken chiefly in favour of Mr. Fox, afterwards lord Holland, which ceased on the overthrow of the administration to which his lordship was attached. This paper was answered by Owen Ruffhead, in the “Contest.” During his study of the law, the stage was, either from inclination or necessity, his resource; and in the beginning of 1758, he produced the farce of “The Upholsterer,” which was very successful; and before the end of the same year he finished “The Orphan of China,” which is founded on a dramatic piece, translated from this Chinese language, in Du Halde’s “History of China.” The muse, as he says, “still keeping possession of him,” he produced, in 1760 the “Desert Island,” a dramatic poem; and his “Way to keep Him,” a comedy of three acts, afterwards enlarged to five acts, the most popular of all his dramatic compositions. This was followed by the comedy of “All in the Wrong,” “The Citizen,” and “The Old Maid;” all of which were successful, and still retain their rank among acting-pieces. Having finished his preparatory law-studies, he was called to the bar in Trinity-Term, 1762. About this time, he engaged again in political controversy, by writing “The Auditor,” a periodical paper, intended to counteract the influence of Wilkes’s “North-Briton;” but in this he was peculiarly unfortunate, neither pleasing the public, nor deriving much support from those on whose behalf he wrote. Wilkes and Churchill, who were associated in politics, contrived to throw a degree of ridicule on Murphy’s labours, which was fatal. Murphy appearing to his antagonists to meddle with subjects which he did not understand, they laid a trap to make him discover his want of geographical knowledge, by sending him a letter signed “Viator,” boasting of the vast acquisition, by lord Bute’s treaty of peace, of Florida to this country, and representing that country as peculiarly rich in fuel for domestic uses, &c. This Arthur accordingly inserted, with a remark that “he gave it exactly as he received it, in order to throw all the lights in his power upon the solid value of the advantages procured by the late negociation.” Wilkes immediately reprinted this letter in his “North Britain;” and the “Auditor” found it impossible to bear up against the satires levelled at him from all quarters.

In the summer of 1763, Mr. Murphy went his first, the Norfolk, circuit; but with little success; and afterwards appeared occasionally as a pleader in London. The Muse, however, he confesses, “still had hold of him, and occasionally stole him away from ‘ Coke upon Littleton.’” In his law pursuits he continued till 1787, when, to his great astonishment, a junior to him on the Norfolk circuit was appointed king’s counsel. Disappointed at this, he sold his chambers in Lincoln’s-Inn, in July 1788, and retired altogether from the bar. The intermediate time, however, had been filled up by the production of his “Three Weeks after Marriage,” “Zenobia,” “The Grecian Daughter,” and other dramatic pieces, generally acted with great applause, and which are yet on the stock list. After he retired from the bar he bought a house at Hammersmith, and there prepared various publications for the press, among which, in 1786, was an edition of his works collectively, in seven volumes, octavo. In 1792, he appeared as one of the biographers of Dr. Johnson, in “An Essay on his Life and Genius;” but this was a very careless sketch, copied almost verbatim from the account of sir John Hawkins’s Life of Johnson, in the Monthly Review. In the following year he published a translation of Tacitus, in four volumes, quarto, dedicated to the late Edmund Burke. To this work, which is executed in a masterly manner, he added “An Essay on the Life and Genius of Tacitus;” with historical supplements and frequent annotations and comments. Mr. Murphy continued to write to an advanced age, and in 1798 he published his “Arminius,” intended to justify the war then carried on against the ambition of France, and which, with the majority of the nation, he considered as both just and necessary. Through his interest with lord Loughborough, he obtained the office of one of the commissioners of bankrupts, to which, during the last three years of his life, was added a pension of two hundred pounds a year. In his latter days, after he had published a “Life of Garrick,” a very sensible decay of mental powers became visible. He continued, however, to be occasionally cheered and assisted by a few friends, until his death, at his lodgings at Knightsbridge, June 18, 1805. From his biographer’s account it appears he had perfectly reconciled his mind to the stroke of death: when he had made his will, and given plain and accurate directions respecting his funeral, he said, “I have been preparing for my journey to another region, and now do not care how soon I take my departure.” On the day of his death he frequently repeated the lines of Pope:

To welcome death and calmly pass away."

Besides the works already mentioned and alluded to, Mr. Murphy was author of a translation of Sallust, which has appeared as a posthumous work.

Mr. Murphy, in his better days, was a man of elegant manners, and of a well-informed mind, rich also in anecdotes of the literature of his period, which he related with great humour and accuracy, and there was a time when the company of few men was more courted, or was in itself more entertaining. As a dramatic writer he may be deemed both fortunate and unfortunate fortunate as he established a very high character, and produced more stock pieces than any man of his time; and unfortunate, as the stage detached him from a profession by which he might have attained ease and independence. The consciousness of this had visible effects on his temper in his last years. It was a painful recollection that he had lived to see the companions and familiar friends of his youth advanced to the highest ranks in the state, while he was left to derive a scanty support from talents now in their decay.

, a clergyman of Scotland, was born at Dunkeld in that country, in 1702, and educated in the Marishal college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was licensed as a probationer in the ministry. Being of a romantic turn of mind, although an excellent classical scholar, he refused a living in Scotland, and came to London, where, it is said, but we know not upon what authority, he was made choice of as an assistant-preacher to the congregation in Swallow-street, Westminster. But his pulpit-oratory did not acquire him popularity, and his sentiments were rather disgustful to his hearers. This induced him to solicit the protection of James late duke of Athol, who took him into his family, where he wrote a work, entitled “Aletheia, or a System of Moral Truths,” which has been published in the form of letters, in 2 vols. 12mo. He died in London in 1758, aged fifty-five.

, an eminent English lawyer, was fourth son of David, earl of Stormont, and was born March 2, 1705, at Perth, in Scotland. He was brought to England at the age of three years, for his education, which accounts for his always being free from the accent so peculiar in the natives of that country. He was educated at Westminster-school, being admitted a king’s scholar at the age of fourteen years. During the time of his being at school, he afforded proofs of his ability, not so much in poetry, as in declamation, and other exercises, which gave promise of the eloquence that grew up to such perfection when at the bar, and in parliament. At the election in May 1723, he stood first on the list of those scholars who were to go to Oxford, and was entered of Christ church June 18 of that year, where in 1727, he appears to have taken the degree of bachelor of arts; and, on the death of king George I. he was amongst those who contributed their poetical compositions, in Latin, on that event.

On June 26, 1730, he took the degree of master of ar,ts, and soon after made a tour on the continent. On his return, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn; and, in due time, was called to the bar. Mr. Murray is among those rare instances of persons who very 'early attained to reputation and practice in the profession. His talent was for public speaking, which gave him a superiority that enabled him to rival and excel those who were far beyond him in knowledge and experience. A reputation early attained gives a character which it is very difficult for time to change or eradicate. Mr. Murray’s premature success created an early impression that he was more of a speaker than a lawyer; and, while he was readily acknowledged to excel both old and young, in the one qualification, the world were long unwilling to allow him an ascendancy in the other. His attachment to the belles lettres, and society with Mr. Pope and other wits of his time, gave countenance to the idea, that little time was left for Coke, Plowden, and the Year-hooks. But time and experience, as they improved Mr. Murray, gradually convinced the world, that his mind was equally made for jurisprudence or oratory.

We find him employed, so early as 1736, as an advocate against th bill of pains and penalties, which afterwards passed into a law, against the lord-provost and city of Edinburgh, for the riotous murder of captain Porteus. On Nov. 20, 1738, he married lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the earl of Winchelsea and, in November 1742, he was appointed solicitor- general in the room of sir John Strange, who resigned. He was also chosen representative of the town of Boroughbridge; and was afterwards returned for the same place in 1747 and 1754. In March 1746, he? was appointed one of the managers for the impeachment of lord Lovat by the House of Commons. It was his part to observe upon the evidence in reply to the prisoner; in this he displayed so much candour, as well as so much ability, that he was complimented by the prisoner no less than by the lord-chancellor Talbot, who presided at the trial.

In 1753, a most injurious attack was made upon Mr. Murray’s character on the following occasion: It had been said, that Dr. Johnson, a person then thought of for considerable preferment, and afterwards bishop of Worcester, a very intimate friend of Mr. Murray, was of Jacobitical principles, and had even drank the pretender’s health in a company near twenty years before. This story was thought of sufficient importance to induce Mr. Pelham, then minister, to write down to Newcastle to Mr. Fawcett, the recorder, who was the author of the story, to learn the truth. Mr. Fawcett answered this inquiry in an evasive manner; but, in a subsequent conversation with lord Ravensworth, added, that Mr. Murray and Mr. Stone had done the same several times. Lord Ravensworth thought, that, Mr. Stone holding an office about the prince, such a suggestion as to his loyalty and principles ought not to be slighted; and he made it so much a matter of conversation, that the ministry advised the king to have the whole information examined; and a proceeding was had in the council, and afterwards in, the House of Lords, for that purpose. When Mr. Murray heard of the committee being appointed to examine this idle affair, he sent a message to the king, humbly to acquaint him, that, if he should be called before such a tribunal on so scandalous and injurious account, he would resign his office, and would refuse to answer. It came, however, before the House of Lords, on the motion of the duke of Bedford, on Jan. 22, 1753, who divided the house upon it, but the house was not told; and thus ended a transaction, which, according to lord Melcombe, was “the worst judged, the worst executed, and the worst supported point, he ever saw of such expectation.”

On the advancement of sir Dudley Ryder to be chief justice of the king’s bench in 1754, Mr. Murray succeeded him as attorney-general, and, on his death in Nov. 1756, he succeeded him as chief justice of the King’s Bench. On his leaving Lincoln’s-inn, Mr. Yorke, son of the lord chancellor, made him a compliment of regret, in an elegant speech, which was answered by Mr. Murray, in one which abounds with panegyric on Mr. Yorke’s father, the then chancellor, whose merit he extols before those of Bacon, Clarendon, and Somers. He was sworn into his office on November 8, and took his seat on the bench Nov. 11. The motto on his Serjeant’s rings was “Servate Domum.” He was immediately after created baron of Mansfield, to him, and the heirs-male of his body.

From the first of his coming upon the bench of that court, he set himself to introduce regularity, punctuality; and dispatch in business. On the fourth day after his appointment, he laid it down, that, where the court had no doubt, they ought not to put the parties to the delay and expence of a farther argument. Such was the general satisfaction during the time he presided there, that the business of the court increased in a way never before known, and yet was dispatched as had never before been seen, whether in bank, or at nisi prius. “At the sitting for London and Middlesex,” says sir James Burrow, in the preface to his Reports, “there are not so few as eight hundred causes set down in a year, and all disposed of.” Respecting the business in barjk, he says, “notwithstanding the immensity of business, it is notorious, that, in consequence of method, and a very few rules, which have been laid down to prevent delay (even where the parties themselves would willingly consent to it), nothing now hangs in court. Upon the last day of the very last term, if we exclude such motions of the term as by the desire of the parties went over of course, as peremptories; there was not a single matter of any kind that remained undetermined, excepting one case relating to the proprietary lordship of Maryland, which was professedly postponed on account of the present situation of America. One might speak to the same effect concerning the last day of any former term for some years backward.” The same reporter says, that, except in the c^se of Perrin and Blake, and the case of Literary Property, there had not been, from Nov. 6, 1756, to May 26, 1776, a final difference of opinion in the court in any case, or upon any point whatsoever; and it is remarkable too, that, excepting these two cases, no judgment given during the same period had been reversed, either in the exchequer chamber, or parliament; and even these two reversals were with great difference of opinion among the judges.

At the commencement of the present reign, this noble lord was marked as an object of party rancour; and he continued exposed to the most malicious slander and invective for many years; but this made no interruption in the sedulous attention he ever paid to the duties of his office. For one short period of his life, he shewed himself in opposition to the government. During the administration of lord Rockingham, in 1765, he opposed the bill for repealing the stamp-act, and is supposed to have had some share in the composition of the protests on that occasion, though he did not sign them.

The affair of Mr. Wilkes’s outlawry was the next thing which brought upon this noble person the malicious attacks of party and faction. Whether this outlawry should be reversed or not, was a dry question of law, upon the wording of the record, and nothing could be more remote from considerations of expediency, and reasons of political moment; it was a matter wholly clerical, and better understood by the subordinate officers ol the court than by most on the bench. But this point of special pleading was made an object of much popular expectation; and, on the judgment was to be given, not only the court, but the whole of Westminster-hall, and Palace-yard, were crowded with anxious spectators. The court had made up their minds to reverse the outlawry, so that Mr. Wilkes was let in to receive judgment on the conviction. Upon this occasion lord Mansfield took notice of the unusual appearance of popular heat that had been discovered and directed against the judges of that court, and, more especially, against himself, with a manliness that will ever do honour to his character. He declared his contempt of all the threats that had been used to intimidate the court from doing its duty. He said that such attempts could have no effect but that which would be contrary to their intent; leaning against their impression might give a bias the other way; but he hoped, and knew, that he had fortitude enough to resist even that weakness. “No libels, no threats, nothing that has happened, nothing that can happen, will weigh a feather against allowing the defendant, upon this and every other question, not only the whole advantage he is entitled to from substantial law and justice, but every benefit from the most critical nicety of form, which any other defendant could claim under the like objection. The only effect I feel,” says he, “is an anxiety to be able to explain the grounds upon which we proceed, so as to satisfy all mankind, that a flaw of form given way to, in this case, could not have been got over in any other.” It was upon this occasion that he delivered the following striking sentiment “I honour the king, and respect the people; but many things acquired by the favour of either, are, in my account, objects not worth ambition. I wish popularity, but it is that popularity which follows, not that which is run after.”

In Jan. 1770 he was offered the great seal, which he declined; and it was put into commission again. In Hilary term, 1771, he declined the same offer, and it was delivered to Mr. Justice Bathurst. In 1770 an attack was made on this noble judicial character, both in the House of Lords and Commons. His direction to the jury, in the case of Woodfall, the printer, who was prosecuted for a libel, was called in question; but his lordship’s opinion, and that of the whole court, stood its ground. On Oct. 19, 1776, he was made an earl of Great Britain, by the title of earl of Mansfield, to him and his issue male; with remainder to Louisa viscountess Stormont, and to her heirs-male by David viscount Stormont, her husband.

In the month of June, 1780, when the metropolis of the kingdom was exposed, for several days, to the depredations of a banditti, that took advantage of the tumultuous assemblies brought together by the protestant association, lord Mansfield was made an object of popular fury, and his house in Bloomsbury-square, with every thing in it, was burnt. This attack was so unexpected, that no preparation was made against it and he escaped only with his life. This was on Tuesday night, June 7 and he did not appear in court till June 14, the last day of term. When he took his seat, Mr. Douglas informs us, in his Reports, “the reverential silence that was observed was expressive of sentiments of condolence and respect more affecting than the most eloquent address the occasion could have suggested.” His lordship was entitled, amongst others, to recover the amount of his loss against the hundred. There was also a vote of the House of Commons, in consequence of which the treasury directed the surveyor of the board of works to apply to lord Mansfield, as one of the principal sufferers, requesting him to state the nature and amount of -his loss: but he declined this offer of compensation. “It does not become me,” says he, in his answer to the surveyorgeneral, “however great the loss may be, to claim or expect reparation from the state.”

From this time, it seemed, as if popular odium had spent its fury, and had no longer any malice to direct against this noble person. Party rage seemed to be softened by this last act of mischief; and, during the remainder of his days, lord Mansfield seemed to unite all parties in one uniform sentiment of approbation and reverence for a tried and ancient servant of the public. The increase of years did not bring on such infirmities as to disable him from, discharging the duties of his station till about 1787: these, at length, bore so much upon him that he came to the resolution to resign his office, which he did in the month of June, 1788. Upon that occasion the gentlemen who practised at the bar of the court where he had so long presided, addressed to his lordship a letter, in which they lamented their loss, but remembered, with peculiar satisfaction, that his lordship was not cut off from them by the sudden stroke of painful distemper, or the more distressing of those extraordinary faculties which had so long disv tinguished him among men; but, that it had pleased God to allow to the evening of a useful and illustrious life the purest enjoyment that nature had ever allotted to it. The unclouded reflections of a superior and unfading wind over its varied events, and the happy consciousness that it had been faithfully and eminently devoted to the highest duties of human society, in the most distinguished nation upon, earth. They expressed a wish that the season of this high satisfaction might bear its proportion to the lengthened days of his rctivity and strength. This letter had many signatures, and was, atthe desire of Mr. Bearcroft, the senior counsel in that court, transmitted to the venerable peer by Mr. (now lord) Erskine. Lord Mansfield instantly returned an answer, in which he said, that, if he had given any satisfaction, it was owing to the learning and candour of the bar; the liberality and integrity of their practice freed the judicial investigation of truth and justice from difficulties. The memory of the assistance he had received from them, and the deep impression which the extraordinary mark they had no v given him of their approbation and affection, had made upon his mind, would be a source of perpetual consolation in his decline of life, under the pressure of bodily infirmities, which made it his duty to retire.

His health continued to decline; but his mental faculties remained to the last very little impaired; he was glad to receive visitors, and talk upon the events of the time. Of the French revolution he is reported to have said, that it was an extraordinary event and, as it was without example, so it was without a prognostic no conjectures could be formed of its consequences. He lived to March 20, 1793, and departed this life in the eightyninth year of his age. He left no children; and the earldom, which was granted again by a new patent, in 1792, descended on his nephew, lord Stormont, together with his immense fortune. His will was dated April 17, 1782; it was written in his own hand, upon little more than a half sheet of paper. It begins thus: “When it shall please Almighty God to call me to that state, to which, of all I now enjoy, I can carry only the satisfaction of my own conscience, and a full reliance on his mercy, through Jesus Christ: I desire that my body may be interred as privately as may be; and, out of respect for the place of my early education, I should wish it to be in Westminster abbey.” He was buried, about nine o'clock in the morning of March 28, in the same vault with his countess, who died April 10, 1784, in Westminster-abbey, between the late earl of Chatham and lord Robert Manners.

A life of this eminent lawyer is still a desideratum, but with the lapse of time, the means of procuring materials are placed farther and farther beyond the reach of modern, inquiry. Mr. Holliday, in his lately published “Life,” has done much, perhaps as much as can be done; but curiosity requires a knowledge of lord Mansfield in the more early and brilliant periods of his career, and that, perhaps, it may be impossible now to acquire. We shall, however, conclude our article with Dr. Kurd’s well-drawn statement of a part of his character, which first appeared in that prelate’s preface to Warburton’s works.

"Mr. Murray, afterwards earl of Mansfield, and lord chief justice of England, was so extraordinary a person, and made so great a figure in the world, that his name must go down to posterity with distinguished honour in the public records of the nation; for, his shining talents displayed themselves in every department of the state as well as in the supreme court of justice, his peculiar province, which he filled with a lustre of reputation, not equalled perhaps, certainly not exceeded, by any of his predecessors.

"Of his conduct in the House of Lords I can speak with the more confidence, because I speak from my own observation. Too goad to be the leader, and too able to be the dupe of any party, he was believed to speak his own sense of public measures; and the authority of his judgment was so high, that, in regular limes, the house was usually decided by it. He was no forward or frequent speaker, but reserved himself, as was fit, for occasions worthy of him. In debate he was eloquent as well as wise, or rather he became eloquent by his wisdom. His countenance and tone of voice imprinted the ideas of penetration, probity, and candour; but what secured yow attention and assent to all he said was his constant good sense, flowing in apt terms, and in the clearest method. He affected no sallies of the imagination, or bursts of passion; much less would he condescend to personal abuse, or to petulant altercation; All was clear candid reason, letting itself so easily into the minds of his hearers as to carry information and conviction with it. In a word, his public senatorial character very much resembled that of Messala, of whom Cicero says, addressing himself to Brutus, < Do not imagine, Brutus, that for worth, honour, and a warm love of his country, any one is comparable to Messala;' so that his eloquence, in which he wonderfully excels, is almost eclipsed by those virtues: and even in his display of that faculty his superior good sense shews itself most; with so much care and skill hath he formed himself to the truest manner of speaking His powers of genius and invention are confessedly of the first size, yet he almost owes less to them, than the diligent and studious cultivation of judgment.

“In the commerce of a private life lord Mansfield was easy, friendly, and very entertaining, extremely sensible of worth in other men, and ready on all occasions to countenance and patronize it.”

, an eminent physician at Rome, acquired such reputation as to be appointed physician to the emperor Augustus, about 21 B. C. He is said to have been the first who prescribed the use of the cold bath; but whatever may be in this, he advised cold bathing and a cool regimen in the case of his imperial master, which effected the cure of many disorders with which Augustus had been previously afflicted, and made him a great favourite both with the emperor and the people. Little is Known of his history besides, and none of his writings have descended to posterity. The tract, printed among others on the materia medica at Basil in 1528 and 1549, “Libellus de Botanica,” and attributed to Musa, is thought to have been the production of a later pen. Bishop Atterbury, in a letter to Dr. Freind, endeavours to prove that the lapis mentioned by Virgil (Eneid XII. 391) was our Musa; but Dr. Templeman and others have differed from him in this opinion, for reasons which cannot easily be rejected.

, celebrated by ancient writers as a philosopher, astronomer, and poet, was, according to Plato and Diodorus Siculus, an Athenian, the son of Orpheus, and chief of the Eleusinian mysteries, instituted at Athens in honour of Ceres; or, according to others, he was only the disciple of Orpheus. He is allowed to have been one of the first poets who versified the oracles. He is placed in the Arundelian marbles, Epoch 15, 1426 B.C. at which time his hymns are there said to have been received in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. Laertius tells us, that Musæus not only composed a theogony, but formed the first sphere but he was probably misled by the title of a poem said to have been written by Mnsaeus, “de Sphaera.” The doctrine which he taught was, that all things are produced fiom one, and shall be resolved into the same; an Orphic doctrine, which is the first principle of the system of emanation, and the foundation of all the ancient theogonies. He is celebrated by Virgil in the character of Hierophant, or priest of Ceres, among the most illustrious mortals who have merited a place in Elysium, and is made the conductor of Æneus to the recess, where he meets the shade of his fatber Anchises.

A hill near the citadel of Athens was called Musæum, according to Pausamas, from Musæus, who used to retire thither to meditate, and compose his religious hymns, and at which place he was afterwards buried. The works which went under his name, like those of Orpheus, were by many attributed to Onomacritus. Nothing remains of this poet now, nor were any of his writings exta-nt in the time of Pansanias, except a hymn to Ceres, which he made for theLycomedes. There is another Musæus, called the grammarian, author of a Greek poem on “The Loves of Hero and Leander.” He is supposed to have lived as late as the fourth century, since he is not referred to by any of the older scholiasts, and some of his verses appear borrowed from the Dionysiacs of Nonnius. Nothing is known of him personally, yet his work is in a pure and elegant style, with much delicacy of sentiment. It has been frequently reprinted, both in collections and separately, and has been translated into various languages.

, a celebrated German divine and reformer, was the son of a cooper, and born at Dieuze, upon Lorrain Sept. 8, 1497. His father being unable to furnish him with education, Musculus was obliged to provide for his own subsistence, as was the case with poor scholars at that time, by singing from door to door; and his talents having attracted the notice of a convent of Benedictines, they offered him the habit of their order, which he accepted, applied himself to study, and became a good preacher. He embraced Luther’s principles, and so strenuously supported them upon all occasions, as to induce many of his brethren to forsake the order. When this, as may be expected, raised him enemies, he made an open profession of Lutheranism, fled to Strasburgin i 527, and the same year married. Having now no provision whatever, he was reduced to the necessity of sending his wife to service in a clergyman’s family, and of binding himself apprentice to a weaver, who dismissed him in two months for discovering part of that zeal which had already induced him to make so many sacrifices. He then resolved to earn his bread by working at the fortifications of Strasburg; but, the evening before he was to begin this drudgery, he was informed that the magistrates had appointed him to preach every Sunday in the village of Dorlisheim. Having complied with this offer, he lodged during the rest of the week at Strasburg with Martin Bucer, and increased

his poor pittance by transcribing the works of that reformer for the press. Some months after, when this resource failed, he was obliged to reside at Dorlisheim, where he continued to suffer the rigours of poverty with great constancy. His only moveable was the little bed he brought from the convent; which, however, was soon occupied by his wife, who was ready to lie-in. At this t me he lay on the ground upon a little straw, and must have perished through want, if the magistrates of Strasburg had not at length assigned him a sum out of the public treasury. He was then invited again to Strasburg, as officiating deacon in the principal church, and, after he had acquitted himself in this character for about two years, he went to preach at Augsburg in 1531. Here, after sustaining many controversies with the papists, he by degrees prevailed upon the magistrates to banish popery entirely, which was finally accomplished in 1537. Musculus served the church of Augsburg till 1548; when Charles V. having entered the city, and re-established popery in the church of Notre Dame, he found it necessary for his safety to retire to Switzerland, his wife and children following soon after; and was invited by the magistrates of Bern in 1549 to the professorship of divinity. Here he was so successful in his ministry and teaching, and so kindly treated, that he never would accept of any other situation, though several were offered him elsewhere, He died at Bern, Aug. 30, 1563. His talents occasioned him to be employed in some very important ecclesiastical concerns: he was deputed by the senate of Augsburg m 1536, to the synod at Eynach, for the re- union of the protestants upon the doctrine of the supper he was deputed to assist a*the conferences which were held between the protestant and Roman catholic divines, during the diet of Worms, and that of Ratisbon, in 1540 and 1541 he was one of the secretaries of the conference at Ratisbon, between Melancthon and Eccius, and drew up the acts of it: and he was sent to the inhabitants of Donawert, who embraced the reformation in 1544, to promote that design.

He was a man of great application and deep learning, and a considerable master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, although he was at the least thirty-two when he began to study the latter, and forty when he first applied to the former. He published several books, the first of which were translations from the Greek into Latin, particularly the “Comment of St. Chrysostom upon St. Paul’s Epistles to the” Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians,“printed at Basil in 1536 the second volume of the” Works of St. Basil“the” Scholia of -the same father upon the Psalms;“several” Treatises of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril;“and the” Ecclesiastical History of Eusehius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and Polybius.“He published” Comments upon some parts of both the Old and New Testament;“and father Simon says, that” he was acquainted with the true way of explaining the Scriptures, but had not all the necessary accomplishments to enable him to succeed perfectly in it, because he was not sufficiently exercised in the study of the languages and of critical learning. However,“he adds,” Musculus examines the ancient Greek and Latin translations without prejudice; and he has shewn well enough, that the points which are now printed in the Hebrew text, were not used at the time of the Septuagint and St Jerome.“He was the author of some original works, both in Latin and German, particularly his” Loci Communes,“or” Common Places," which, with other tracts by him, were published in English during the reign of queen Elizabeth, along with the writings of the principal foreign reformers, and contributed not a little to strengthen, the principles of the reformation.

, an English physician and antiquary, was descended from an ancient family in Westmorland, but born at Charlton-Musgrave in Somersetshire, in 1657. Being educated, as is supposed, at Winchester-school, he became, in 1675, a probationerfellow of New college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of LL. B. in 1682; but afterwards studying physic, distinguished himself greatly by his knowledge in that profession and in natural philosophy; and was elected fellow of the royal society. He was made secretary to it in 1684, in which quality he continued, and published the “Philosophical Transactions,” from No. 167 to 178, inclusive; and several curious observations, which occurred to hirn in the course of his profession, he caused to be inserted, at different times, in that collection. He took his degrees in physic in 1685 and 1689, and was afterwards admitted fellow of the college of physicians in London. In 1691, he went and settled in the city of Exeter, where he exercised his profession a long time with great reputation and success. He died Dec. 23, 1721.

Being a man of very extensive learning, he composed, at his leisure-hours, several curious works, as, 1. “De Arthritide symptomatica Dissertatio, 1703,” 8vo. 2. “De Arthritide^anomala sive interna Dissertatio, 1707,” 8vo. Of these two books, one upon the regular, the other upon the irregular or inward gout, he gave an account in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 3. “Julii Vitalis Epitaphitim: cum Commentario, 1711,” 8vo, a work much praised by Mr. Moyle. 4. “De Legionibus Epistola.” This letter concerning the Roman legions was addressed to sir Hans Sloane. 5. “De Aquilis Romania Epistola, 1713,” 8vo, addressed to Gisbert Cuper, consul of Deventer, who had affirmed that the Roman eagles were of massy gold or silver; while Musgrave maintained, that they were only plated over, in which opinion he was joined by Moyle. 6. “Inscriptio Terraconensis; cum Commentario.” 7. “Geta Britannicus. Accedit Domus Severianae Synopsis chronologica; et de Icuncula quondam M. Regis jElfridi Dissertatio, 1715,” 8vo. That is, “Observations upon a fragment of an equestrian stone Statue, found near Bath, which Musgrave believes to have been set up in honour of Geta, after his arrival in Britain; together with a chronological Synopsis of the family of Severus; and a dissertation upon a piece of Saxon antiquity found at Athelney in Somersetshire, being king Alfred the Great’s Amulet.” 8. “Belgium Britannicum;” or, “An account of that part of South Britain which was anciently inhabited by a people called Belgae, and now comprehends Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire,” 1719, 8vo. To this work is prefixed a dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove that Britain was formerly a peninsula, and joined to France about Calais. All the above tracts on antiquities were published together at Exeter, in 1720, 4 vols. 8vo. In 1776 a posthumous dissertation of his on the gout was published under the title of “De Arthritide primogenia et regulari,” 8vo. He had left the manuscript to his son William Musgrave, M. B. by whom it was committed to the press, but he dying when the work was nearly completed, the sheets remained in the warehouse of the Clarendon press until the above-mentioned period, when it was published by the author’s grandson, the late Dr. Samuel Musgrave, of Exeter, a gentleman once noted (about 1761) for his pretended political discoveries respecting the private history of the peace, and afterwards as a Greek scholar and critic. He studied at Leyden, where in 1762 he published “Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo,” 8vo, and when he took his degree, “Apologia pro medicina Empirica,” 1763, 4to. After his return he practised physic at Exeter, and bestowed much time on collating various Mss. of Euripides, which collations, with his notes, were incorporated in an edition of that classic printed at Oxford in 1778, 4 vols. 8vo. Dr. Harwood gives a very unfavourable opinion of this edition, nor has it been in general much prized by foreign critics. Dr. Musgrave died July 3, 1782, greatly reduced in circumstances, and after his death was edited by Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the benefit of his family, “Two Dissertations,” on the Grecian mythology, and the chronology of the Olympiads.

, an Italian historian and poet, was born at Padua in 1261. When young he lost his father, and was left with a numerous family of brothers and sisters, whom he at first endeavoured to maintain by copying books for the scholars of the university. He was also permitted to attend the lectures there, and made very considerable progress in belles lettres and the law. Theiatterhe chose as the profession most likely to enable him to maintain his family, nor was he disappointed; and the very great ability he displayed at other times occasioned his being employed in political affairs. His talents in this respect were first called forth when Henry VII. made a descent on Italy; on which event he was five times se nt by the Paduans to that prince, who conceived a very high opinion of him. In his history we find the speeches he ma ie to Henry, and those he addressed to the senate of Padua. He also distinguished himself in the war which the Paduans carried on against Can Grande de la Scala, and when wounded and taken prisoner in 1314, Can Grande paid him the attention due to his merit, and restored him to liberty. The war raging more furiously, Mussato went first to Tuscany to negociate an alliance with the Tuscans and Paduans against Can Grande, but not succeeding, went next to Austria and Carint*hia, where he partially achieved his purpose, and at last, in 1324, had the honour of concluding a peace between Can Grande and his country.

The services, however, which he performed to Padua, were not always sufficient to protect him against the intrigues of his countrymen, who, living under a popular government, were always exposed to commotions excited by the artful and ambitious; and in 1314, particularly, the mob rushed to his house, intending to murder him. He had the good fortune to escape, and when the commotion was ended and the ringleaders put to death, the senate and people recalled him, and, ashamed of the treatment he had received, bestowed many honours upon him. He was again, however, exposed to danger by the ingratitude of his fellow citizens, and banished to Chiozzo in 1325. Here he passed the rest of his life, in hopes of better fortune, which it was not his lot to experience. He died May 29, 1330.

During his exile he employed his time in writing his history, which was printed at Venice, 1636, fol. under the title “Historia Augusta Henrici VII. Imp. et alia quse extant opera, cum notis Laur. Pignorii, &c. additis aliis rerum Tarvisianarum et Patavinarum scriptoribus.” This history is written in Latin, and with much judgment and regard to truth. Had his style been equal, he would have deserved the appellation which some bestowed upon him, that of being the second Livy of Padua. Of this history there are three books written in heroic verse, on the subject of the siege of Padua. His prose style, although, as we have just hinted, not unexceptionable on. the score of purity, was yet the best that had appeared since the decline of letters; and Scipio Maffei goes so far as to say that the restoration of the purity of the Latin language was not so much owing to Petrarch, which is the general opinion, as to Mussato, who died thirty-five years before Petrarch. Mussato’s poetical works consist of eclogues, elegies, epistles in verse, and an Ovidian Cento. He also wrote two tragedies in Latin, the first that had appeared in Italy, the one entitled “Eccerinis,” the other “Achilles.” Jn these he imitates the manner of Seneca, and with success, but some critics object to the model. They are, with his other works, reprinted in the “Thesaurus Histor. Ital.” vol. VI. part II. Muratori, in his “Script. Rer. Ital.” vol. X. has given only his historical writings, and the tragedy of “Eccerinis.” Scardonius, in his “Antiquities of Padua,” p. 130, relates that Mussato was so highly honoured, that the bishop of Padua gave him a laurel crown, and issued an edict, that on every Christmas Day, the doctors, regents, and professors of the two colleges in that city, should go to his house in solemn procession with wax tapers in their hands, and offer him a triple crown honours which he appears to have well merited, both as a scholar and patriot.

, an eminent mathematician and natural philosopher, was born at Leyden in 1692. He appears first to have studied medicine, as he took his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1715, but natural philosophy afterwards occupied most of his attention. After visiting London, where he became acquainted with Newton and Desaguliers, probably about 1734, when he was chosen a fellow of the royal society, he returned home, and was appointed professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Utrecht, which he rendered as celebrated for those sciences as it had long been for law studies. He was afterwards placed in the same chair at Leyden, and obtained great and deserved reputation throughout all Europe. Besides being elected a member of the Paris academy and other learned bodies, the kings of England, Prussia, and Denmark, made him tempting offers to reside in their dominions; but he preferred his native place, where he died in 1761. He published several works in Latin, all of them demonstrating his great penetration and accuracy: 1. “Disputatio de Aeris praesentia in humoribus animalibus,” Leyd. 1715, 4to. 2. “Epitome Elementorum Pbysico-mathematicorum,” ib. 1729, 4to. 3. “Physicx, experimentales, et geometries Dissertationes: ut et Ephemerides meteorologicae Utrajectenses,” ibid. 1729, 4to. 4. “Tentamina Experinientorurn naturalium, in academia del Cimento, ex Ital. in Lat. conversa,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 5. “Elementa Physicsc,” 1734, 8vo, translated into English by Colson, 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. His “Introduction to Natural Philosophy,” which he began to print in 1760, was completed and published at Leyden in 1762 by M. Lulofs, after the death of the author. There is a French translation, of Paris, 1769, 3 vols. 4to. Musschenbroeck is also the author of several papers, chiefly on meteorology, printed in the volumes of the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” for 1734, 1735, 1736, 1753, 1756, and 1760.

, one of the revivers of literature, was a. native of Candia, and came to Italy about the beginning of the sixteenth century, where he understood that encouragement would be given to men of ability in the languages and grammatical studies. After exhibiting proofs of his talents at Venice, the senate appointed him to teach publicly at Padua in 1503, and a great concourse of scholars gathered around him, until his labours were interrupted by the war. He had been the disciple of Lascaris, who recommended him to the notice of Leo X.; and that pontiff addressed a letter to him when he was at Venice in 1513, requesting that he would invite from Greece ten young men, of education and virtuous disposition, who might instruct the Italians in the proper use and knowledge of the Greek language. This establishment accordingly was formed, and Lascaris was placed at the head of it. At this time Musurus was finishing the first edition of the works of Plato, in Greek, which was printed by Aldus in 1513. To this edition Musurus prefixed some Greek verses that have been much admired, and published separately, by Muncker, Amsterdam, 1676, 4to, by our Foster, in his ingenious work on the Greek accents (see Foster), and more recently at Cambridge, by Samuel Butler, A. B. 1797. It is also reprinted in Mr. Rescue’s “Leo X.” with an elegant English translation.

Leo was so pleased with these verses, and the services Musurus had rendered to literature, as to confer upon him the bishopric of Malvasia, in the Morea, about a year before his death, which happened at Rome in the autumn of 1517. Besides his Plato, the learned world is indebted to him for the first editions of Aristophanes and Athenaeus. The Aristophanes was published at Venice in 1498, fol. The Athenaeus, a far less correct work, and perhaps the most incorrect princeps editio, was published in 1514, fol. at Venice.

, a learned Spanish physician, divine, and botanist, was born at Cadiz in 1734. He studied medicine at his native place and at Seville, and having obtained much reputation, was appointed professor of anatomy at Madrid, where he signalized himself by his physiological knowledge. In 1760 the marquis della Vega, being appointed viceroy of New Granada, solicited Mutis to accompany him as his physician. On his arrival at Santa Fe de Bogota, the capital of New Granada, Mutis, by permission of the viceroy, undertook to introduce the mathematics as a branch of study in the university, and his lectures on that subject were heard with attention and admiration, and he was at length, by the authority of the Spanish government, established professor of philosophy, mathematics, and natural history, at Santa Fe. While enjoying this post, some unfortunate speculations in the mines, which exhausted his pecuniary resources, occasioned his taking orders in the church, and his clerical duties now shared a considerable portion of his time. Part of it likewise was employed in botanical researches, and he corresponded with Linnæus, to whom he sent numerous specimens [of his own discover) 7 particularly the Mutisia, so named in honour of him by Linnæus. In 1776 he settled at Sapo, in the government of Mariquita, where he had many enviable opportunities of discovering and collecting singular plants and flowers. In 1778 don Antonio Caballeroy Gorgora, the new archbishop, on his arrival at Santa Fe, discovered the superior merits of Mutis, and determined to extricate him from his difficulties, and procure him a pension, with the appointment of botanist and astronomer to the king. Accordingly, under the patronage of this liberal prelate, he became the superintendant of a botanical school for investigating the plants of America. In 1783, attended by some of his pupils, and several draughtsmen, he made a tour through the kingdom of New Granada; and by his diligence much new light was thrown upon the history of the Peruvian bark, and its various species. He also taught his countrymen the culture and the value of indigo. His health having suffered from the climate of Mariquita, he was directed to repair to Santa F, and to fix on some of his pupils, whose y; uth and constitutions might be more adequate to such labours. In 1797 he had an opportunity to visit Paris, to consult with Jussieu, and the other eminent botanists of that capital, concerning the composition of a “Flora Bogotensis,” and to make himself master of all the new improvements and discoveries. He remained at Paris till 1801, when he went back to Madrid. Whether he subsequently returned to his native country, we know not, but in 1804 he was appointed to the professorship of Botany, and superintendance of the royal garden at Madrid. Although his advancing age made repose now in some measure necessary, he continued to be serviceable to the government of his native country, and to the prosperity of that in which he had so long been naturalized. He lived to an advanced age, but of the precise date of his death we are not informed.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in 1585, and was educated to the law. He became counsellor to the Chatelet, and afterwards treasurer of France in the generality of Amiens, but was too much attached to mathematical pursuits, and master of too ample a fortune, to pursue his profession as a source of emolument. He was the friend and acquaintance of Des Cartes, and entered into a vindication of him, in the dispute which he had with M. Fermat, and was afterwards a mediator of the peace which was made between those learned men in 1638. In the same year Mydorge published a Lutin treatise “On Conic Sections,” in four bt oks, which Meisenne has inserted in his “Abridgment of Universal Geometry.” In 1642, he and Des Cartes received an invitation from sir Charles Cavendish to settle in England, which he declined, on the approach of the rebellion. He died at Paris in 1647, in the sixty-third year of his age. He was a practical mechanic, as well as an able mathematician, and spent more than a thousand crowns on the fabrication of glasses for telescopes, burning mirrors, mechanical engines, and mathematical instruments.

, an eminent architect, to whose memory Black Friars Bridge will be a lasting monument, was born at Edinburgh, Jan. 4, 1734. His father, Thomas Mylne, was an architect, and a magistrate of that city; and his family, it has been ascertained, held th office of master-masons to the kings of Scotland for five hundred year’s, till the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. Mr. Mylne was educated at Edinburgh, and travelled early in life for improvement in h;s hereditary science. At Rome he resided five years, and in September 1758, gained the first prize in the first class of architecture, adjudged by the academy of St. Luke, and was also unanimously elected a member of that body. On this occasion prince Altieri, distinguished for his knowledge of the fine arts, obtained from the pope the necessary dispensation, Mr. Mylne being a protestant. He was also elected a member of the academies of Florence and Bologna. He visited Naples, and viewed the interior of Sicily with an accuracy never before employed; and from his skill in his profession, and his classical knowledge, was enabled to illustrate several very obscure passages in Vitruvius. His fine collection of drawings, with his account of this tour, which he began to arrange for publication in 1774, but was interrupted by his numerous professional engagements, are still in the possession of his son, and will, it is hoped, at no very distant period, be given to the public. He was often heard to remark in his latter days, that in most of his observations and drawings, he had neither been anticipated by those who traversed the ground before him, nor followed by those who came after him.

After making a complete tour of Europe, which he began by going through France, and finished by returning through Switzerland and Holland, he arrived in London, with every possible testimonial of his talents, but without a friend or patron. At this time plans were requested by the city of London for constructing a bridge at Black Friars, and Mr. Mylne, among twenty others, became a candidate. It was well known that one of his rivals was befriended by lord Bute, who had then great influence, but Mr. Mylne succeeded by the impartial verdict of the judges appointed to examine the respective plans; and the first stone was laid in 1761, with a pomp becoming the vast undertaking. A writer of no common talents, in the supplement to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” after a very close examination of the details of this structure, pronounces it to be the most perfect of any that is upon record, and at large points out the great superiority of the centering employed by Mr. Mylne. The learned author seerns, however, to suppose that this ingenious architect made a secret of his mode of centering; but few men had a more liberal spirit, or more aversion to professional quackery of every kind, and therefore, he deposited in the British Museum, an exact model of the centering employed at Blackfriars bridge, which gives a most precise and satisfactory idea of the work. When the bridge was first proposed, Mr. Mylne engaged in a short controversy with Dr. Johnson, on the form of the arch; but they were afterwards intimate friends, and in conversation agreed in a certain sturdy independence of mind which perhaps cemented that friendship. It is much to the honour of Mr. Mylne’s accuracy, as well as integrity, that Blackfriars-bridge was completed in 1765, for the exact sum specified in his estimate, namely, one hundred and fifty-three thousand pounds. On his proposals being accepted, the city committee, in February 1760, voted him an annual salary of three hundred pounds; and his farther remuneration was to be five per cent, on the money laid out on the bridge. To obtain this, however, he hud a long struggle with the city, which he maintained with his characteristic firmness and spirit; and, in answer to a question several times put to him, with no great delicacy, uniformly declared, that what he claimed, he claimed as a matter of right, and not of favour. At length, but not until 1776, his claims were allowed; on which occasion he sent to the corporation a letter of thanks.

Immediately after completing the bridge, he was appointed surveyor of St. Paul’s cathedral, by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the lord-mayor; and not only directed the repairs that have been found necessary in that noble fabrick, but those temporary erections required by the anniversaries of the sons of the clergy, and that most interesting spectacle, the annual assemblage of the charity-children of the metropolis, as well as those more elegant preparations made for the visits of the royal family and the two houses of parliament in 1789, 1797, &c. &c. It was by his suggestion that the noble inscription in honour of sir Christopher Wren, ending, “Si monumentum requiras,” &c. was placed over the entrance of the choir. Among the other edifices which Mr. Mylne erected, or was concerned in the repairs, we may enumerate Rochester cathedral, Greenwich hospital, of which he was clerk of the works for fifteen years Kings- Weston, the seat of lord De Clifford Blaze castle, near Bristol Addington, the seat of the archbishop of Canterbury; Wormlybury, sir Abraham Hume’s; Lying-in hospital, City road the duke of Northumberland’s pavillion, on the banks of the Thames at Sion general Skene’s house, in Fifeshire lord Frederic Campbell’s at Ardincaple; Inverary castle, the duke of Argyle’s; the embankment at the Temple gardens, &c. &c. He was also consulted on almost all the harbours in England. Mr. Milne died, May 5, 1811, at the New River Head, where he had long resided, as engineer to that company; an office to which he was appointed in 1762. He was interred, by his own desire, in St. Paul’s cathedral, near the tomb of his illustrious predecessor, Wren.

Mr. Mylne was a man of most extensive professional knowledge, and while his Blackfriars bridge, and many other structures shewed him an excellent practical builder, he was no less acute and eloquent on the theory of his art. His conversation, always entertaining and edifying, assumed a higher tone, when he was invited to speak on architectural subjects, the history of the Grecian or Gothic styles, or any disputed point respecting the origin of the art. On such, almost to the latest hour of his life, we have heard him dilate with a precision and copious flow of reasoning, that would have been astonishing in the ablest men in the prime of life. His personal character is said to have had some peculiarities. Such as we have observed seemed to arise from a consciousness of superior talent, and a lofty independent e of spirit. Placed often at the head of a tribe of inferior workmen, of contending interests and passions, his orders were peremptory, and were to be obeyed without a murmur; while he could vet listen with patience, if an objection was started on reasonable grounds. What he most disliked was that adherence to custom and practice which made every improvement be considered as a dangerous, impracticable, or inconvenient innovation. Against this he bent the whole force of his authority, and always endeavoured to introduce a more liberal spirit. The common workmen, who looked up to him with some degree of terror, and whom he certainly did not always address in the gentlest terms, were amply recompensed by the care he took that, whoever were his employers, these humble artisans should be paid their wages with the utmost punctuality. Dearly as he loved his profession, he was not avaricious of its emoluments, and after all his distinguished employments, he did not die rich.

In 1770, Mr. Mylne married miss Mary Home, sister of Mr. Home, the surgeon, by whom he had nine children. Of these one son, his successor as engineer of the New River Company, and four daughters, now survive him.

, of Campania, an ancient Latin poet, was bred a soldier, but quitted the profession of arms, in order to apply himself with more leisure to poetry. Accordingly, he prosecuted that art with great diligence, and gave the first specimen of a heroic poem in Latin, in a description of the first Punic war, and the Iliad of Cyprus, mentioned by Cicero. He wrote also some tragedies, a few fragments of which are extant with Livius Andronicus, and somje comedies, the first of which appeared in the year 235 B.C., but this, it is said, when played at Rome, so highly incensed Metellus by the satirical strokes in it, that this nobleman, who wus then very powerful, procured him to be banished from the city. In this condition, he retired to Utica in Africa, where he died in the year 203 B. C. We have only some fragments of his works; unless his epitaph, which is said to have been composed by himself, may be ranked among them. Of these fragments there is an edition by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1569, 8vo.

, an historical writer, was born probably about 1638, and educated at Cambridge, of which he became LL. D. We have discovered very few particulars of his life. He appears to have been zealous in the royal cause during the usurpation, and became rector of Doddington cum March, in the Isle of Ely. He was also in 1684 collated to a prebend in that cathedral. Wood and Bentham say that he died March 24, 1685-6, aged fortyeight years, and was buried in Ely cathedral. If Bentham did not copy this date from Wood, but took it from the registers of Ely, we know not how to reconcile it with a letter from Dr. Nalson, printed in Gutch’s “Collectanea,” and dated 1688, at the time the bishops were sent to the Tower by the infatuated James II. Be this as it may, he published “An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639, to the murder of king Charles I, &c.” Lond. 1682-3, 2 vols. fol. This collection was intended as an antidote to that of Rush worth, whose prejudices were in favour of the parliament; and contains many authentic and curious circumstances not to be found in other writers. Nalson’s statements are reviewed by Roger Coke, esq. in his *' Treatise of the Life of Man,“1685, fbl. Besides this historical collection, Dr. Nalson wrote, 1.” The Countermine: or, a short, but true discovery of the dangerous principles, and secret practices of the dissenting party, especially the presbyterians; shewing, that religion is pretended, but rebellion intended,“&c. Lond. 1677, 8vo. 2.” The Common Interest of King and People, shewing the original, antiquity, and excellency, of monarchy compared with aristocracy and democracy, and particularly of our English monarchy; and that absolute, papal, and presbyterian popular supremacy are utterly inconsistent with prerogative, property, and liberty;“ibid. 1678, 8vo. 3.” A True Copy of the Journal of the High Court of Justice, for the' trial of Charles I. as it was read in the House of Commons, and attested under the hand of Phelps, clerk to that infamous court,“with an introduction, ibid. 1684, fol. He also translated Maimbourg’s” History of the Crusade," &c. ibid. 1685, fol.

, so called from the village of Nancel, his native place, between Noyon and Soissons, was born in 1539. He studied at the college de Presles at Paris, and was employed to teach Greek and Latin there when scarcely eighteen years of age, probably by the interest of Peter Ramus, principal of the college, who conceived very highly of his talents. He was afterwards proKssor in the university of Douay, where he made two pei.:ches “On the excellence and importance of the Greek Language.” Being invited to return to Paris, he was again professor in the college de Presles, and took a doctor’s degree in physic. He went afterwards to practise at Soissons; but principally at Tours, which he found an eligible situation. He was lastly appointed physician to the abbey of Fontevrauld, in 1587; and died there in 1610, leaving a son, who wrote some sacred tragedies. His principal works are, 1. “Stichologia Grseca Latinaque informanda et reformanda,” 8vo. In this work he endeavours to subject the French poetry to the rules of the Greek and Latin, for the purpose, as he says, of rendering it more difficult and less common; a whimsical project, which, it may be supposed, did not succeed. 2. A treatise “On the Plague,” 8vo. 3. “Tr. de Deo, de immortalitate animse contra Galenum, et de sede anima? in corpore,” 8vo. 4. “Declamationuin Liber, eas complectens orationes quas vel ipse juvenis habuit ad populum, vel per discipulos recitavit,” &c. 8vo. 5. “Petri Kami vita,” 8vo. This Life is curious and interesting, and the best of Nancel’s works.

, a French historian, who flourished in the fourteenth century, was a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Denis, and supposed to have taken his name from the place where he was born. He wrote the lives of St. Lewis, and of Philip le Hardi, and two chronicles; the first from the creation to 1300, the second a chronicle generally of the kings of France. The lives were printed, for the first time, in Pithou’s collection in 1596, and the chronicle from 1113, in the “Spicilegium” of D. Luc d' Archery. The life of St. Lewis was again reprinted along with Joinville’s history of the same prince, with a glossary, &c. by J. B. Mellot, Ch. Sallier, and J. Capperonier, at Paris in 1761, fol.

, a noble Venetian, and proctor of St. Mark, was the son of John Nani, once possessed of the same post, and born Aug. 30, 1616. He studied polite learning under Peter Renzoli of Arezzo, a secular priest; and went through his course of philosophy among the Dominicans of St. Paul and St. John at Venice. His brother, Augustine Nani, being made commandant of Vicenza, he followed him to that city, and continued his studies there. Upon his return to his own country, in 1637, he was one of the thirty who are drawn every year by lot, to assist at the election of magistrates. His father, who was a person of good abilities, formed his son for business himself; and, in that view, carried him to Rome, where he went ambassador from the republic of Venice to Urban VI I L That pontiff, a man of discernment, predicted, that John Baptist Nani would make an extraordinary person: and his holiness’s prediction was verified. He was admitted into the college of senators in 1641; and not long after went ambassador to France, which character he sustained at Paris for the space of five years, with great reputation. Mazarine, who then was prime minister there, had frequent conferences with him, and received some excellent advice from him, upon the affairs discussed in the treaty of Munster, which was concluded in 1648; in which year Nani returned home, having obtained from France considerable succours both of men and money, for carrying on the war against the Turks in Candia. His merit raised him soon after to be a member of the grand council of the republic, in which he was appointed superintendant of the marine and the finances. In 1654 he was sent ambassador to the imperial court of Germany; did the republic considerable services; and made a second journey to that court^ upon the election of the emperor Leopold. While he was here, he received orders to go again to France, in 1660. He was there at the marriage of Lewis XIV. after the Pyrenean treaty, and obtained fresh succours for the war of Candia. The Venetian senate were greatly satisfied with his conduct, and appointed him proctor of St. Mark. Not long after, in 1663, the great council nominated him captain-general of the marine; but, the air of the sea not at all agreeing with his constitution, it was resolved not to expose a life so valuable, and even necessary to the republic, to such imminent danger; and the nomination was withdrawn.

He continued, however, to serve his country upon many considerable occasions, and was appointed by the senate to write the “History of Venice;” an employment which is given only to the principal nobility of that republic. He published the first part; and the second was in the press, when he died, Nov. 5, 1678, in his 63d year. His “History of Venice” was much esteemed, and translated into French. There is an English translation of the first part, by sir Robert Honey wood, 1673, fol. There are some partialities in his history, and his style is considerably embarrassed with parentheses, but it is still a favourite with his countrymen. He also published “An Account of his second Ambassage into France in 1660,” and composed other pieces, which are extant in manuscript only. Several authors have spoken advantageously of him.

, or Nannius, or in his native language, Nanningh (Peter), a very learned philologer, and general scholar, was born at Alcmaer, in Holland, in 1500; he studied at Louvain, and then was employed in the private education of some young men until the death of Conrad Goclenius, when the university unanimously appointed him to pronounce a funeral oration on that eminent teacher, and to succeed him as Latin professor. In this office he gave such satisfaction, that all his scholars, who were exceedingly numerous, ever preserved the highest respect for him, and acknowledged that the care he took was the foundation of their future advancement and fame. He was also much esteemed by the cardinal de Granvelle, and by Nicholas Everard, president of the great council of Mechlin. The cardinal preferred him to a canonry in his church of ArraS, and the president placed his children under his care, and rewarded him munificently. With the patronage of these two personages, he was so satisfied as to refuse many liberal offers to remove to Italy, and remained the whole of his life at Louvain. He was a most industrious writer, as well as teacher, and in the numerous list given by Foppen of his publications, we find commentaries on Cicero, on Virgil, and Horace’s Art of Poetry; paraphrases on the Song of Solomon, and on the Proverbs; annotations on civil law, of which he acquired a profound knowledge; translations of some part of Demosthenes, Synesius, Apollonius, Plutarch, St. Athanasius, St. N Basil, Chrysostom; prefaces introductory and illustrative of Homer, and Demosthenes, &c. He also translated the Psalms into Latin verse, and, in the opinion of his contemporaries, with equal elegance and fidelity. Among his separate publications his “Miscellaoeorum decas,” a collection of critical remarks on ancient authors, and his “Dialogismi Heroinarum,” were much esteemed. This eminent scholar died at Louvain, July 21, 1557, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, where one of his scholars, Sigismond Frederic Fugger, placed a monument to his memory. He is mentioned in terms of the highest praise by Miræus, Thuanus, Melchior Adam, Gyraldus, Huet, and many other learned men.

, a celebrated engraver, was born in 1630, at Rheims, where his father kept a petty shop, suitable to his fortune, which was small, but sufficient to enable him to give his son a liberal education. Accordingly, Robert was put to the grammar-school at a proper age; and, as soon as he had made the necessary progress in classical learning, went through a course of philosophy. He had, from his childhood, a strong inclination to drawing; and he applied to it with such success, that being to maintain, according to custom, his philosophical thesis at the end of two years, he drew and engraved it himself. As he continued to cultivate his genius, his productions became the delight of the town. But finding more fame than profit at Rheims, and having married while young, he was under the necessity of seeking a situation where his talents might be more amply rewarded. With this view he left his wife and repaired to Paris, probably without introduction to any friends, as we are told he had no better way to make himself known, than the following device Seeing several young abbes standing at the door of a victualling-house, near the Sorbonne, he asked the mistress if there was not an ecclesiastic of Rheims there? telling her that he had unfortunately forgot his name, but that she might easily know him by the picture that he had of him, shewing her at the same time a portrait, well drawn, and which had the air of being an exact likeness. This drew the attention of some of the abbes, who were profuse in their praises of the portrait. “If you please, messieurs,” said Nantueil, “I will draw all your pictures for a trifle, as highly finished as this is.” The price which he asked was so moderate, that all the abbes sat to him one after another; and then bringing their friends, customers came in so fast, that he took courage to raise his price: and having in a short time acquired a considerable sum, he returned to Rheims, disposed of his little property there, and brought his wife to Paris, where his character soon became established. He applied himself particularly to drawing portraits in crayons, which he afterwards engraved for the use of the academical theses; and succeeded beyond all his predecessors in that branch. He never failed to catch the likeness; and even pretended that he had certain rules which ascertained it. His portrait of the king, as large as life, which he afterwards engraved, so pleased his majesty that he rewarded him with a present of a hundred louis d'ors, and made him designer and engraver to his cabinet, with a salary of 1000 livres per annum. Nantueil afterwards did the portrait of the queen-mother in the same manner, as also that of cardinal Mazarine, the duke of Orleans, marshal Turenne, and others. The grand duke of Tuscany hearing of his fame, requested to have Nantueil’s own portrait by himself, in crayons, in order to place it in his gallery. His works consist of 240 prints, including the portraits of almost all the persons of the first rank in France. Of his filial affection we have the following anecdote. As soon as he had made an easy fortune, his first object was to invite his father to share it; and the manner in which he received him, which happened to be before many witnesses, drew tears of joy from all. From this time the son’s greatest happiness was to comfort the declining years, and supply the wants, of his father. Nantueil died at Paris, Dec. 18, 1678, aged forty-eight.

Carlo Dati, in the life of Zeuxis, speaking of our engraver’s works, says, “These words of Apollonius remind us to contemplate the astonishing art of the prints of the modern gravers in France, where every thing is represented so naturally, the quality of the drapery, the colour of the flesh, the beard, the hair with the powder upon it, and, what is most important, the age, the air, and the lively resemblance of a person, though nothing is made use of besides the black of the ink and the white of the paper; which not only make the light and the shade, but do the office of all the colours. Ail this is seen and admired above all others, in the excellent portraits of the illustrious Nantueil.” This artist was a man of pleasing manners and address, had some share of learning and wit, and his conversation recommended him much to people of fashion. He was well respected at court; and Mazarine, then prime minister, retained him as his designer and engraver, and honoured him with the title of Monsieur. But he never was an œconomist; and of upwards of 500,000 crowns which he had gained, he left only 20,000 to his heirs. The portraits by this excellent artist are well known, and although Strutt has given a short list of the bejt,he allows that it is not easy to say with any degree of precision, among so many beautiful ones, which are the best.

, a celebrated genealogist, was born in 1692, at Saulx le Due in Burgundy. He studied at Dijon and Paris, and at the latter city he was entrusted with the education of some young men of rank. His general turn for history settled at last in the genealogical branch, and -he employed all his leisure in drawing up genealogical tables. From 1736 to 1738 he published a work entitled “Genealogies Historiques des Hois, des Empereurs, et de toutes les Maisons Souveraignes,” 4 vols. 4to. He also published “Tablettes Geographiques,” 1725, 12mo; “Tablettes Historiques, Genealogiques, et Chronologiques,” 1748, &c. 9 vols. 24to and “Tablettes de Themis,” 1755, 12mo. He supplied many articles for the Supplement of Moreri of the edition of 1749, and during his latter years re-wrote the genealogical part of that dictionary, and of the Mercure. He died Dec. 29, 1755, after having been deprived of his sight for the three preceding years.

, a celebrated protestant divine, born in 1511, at Straubingue, in Bavaria, acquired considerable celebrity by his satirical Latin verses against several customs of the catholic church, and died in 1578. His most celebrated poem is entitled “Regnum papisticum,” 1553, and 1559, 8vo. The former is the most rare edition, but not so complete as that of 1559, which sometimes contains two other pieces, the “Sylva Carminum,” and “Sylvula Carminum” “Pamachius Tragedia,” 1538, 8vo “Incendia sive Pyrgopolinices Tragedia,” 1538, 8vo; “Agricultura sacra,” 1551, 8vo; “Hieremias Tragedia,” 1551, 8vo; “Mercator Tragedia,” 1560, 8vo. There are two editions of the French translation of the “Converted Merchant,” 1558, 8vo, and 1561, 12mo, and a third 1591, 12mo, in which is Beza’s “Comedie du Pape malade.” All the above are scarce, and highly prized by collectors. Naogeorge also left commentaries on St. John’s Epistles, and several other works.

, baron of Merchiston in Scotland, and the celebrated inventor of the Logarithms, was the eldest son of sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, and born in 1550. After going through the ordinary course of education at the university of St. Andrew’s, he made the tour of France, Italy, and Germany. On his return he applied himself chiefly to the study of mathematics, to which he joined that of the Scriptures; and in both discovered the most extensive knowledge and profound penetration. His “Essay upon the book of the Apocalypse” indicates the most acute investigation; though time has discovered that his calculations concerning particular events had proceeded upon fallacious data. But what his fame now solely rests upon is his great and fortunate discovery of logarithms in trigonometry, by which the ease and expedition in calculation have so wonderfully assisted the science of astronomy and the arts of practical geometry and navigation. Napier, having much attachment to astronomy and spherical trigonometry, had occasion to make many numeral calculations of such triangles, with sines, tangents, &c. which being expressed in large numbers, occasioned a great deal of labour and trouble: To spare themselves part of this labour, Napier, and other authors about his time, endeavoured to find out certain short modes of calculation, as is evident from many of their writings. To this necessity, and these endeavours it is, that we owe several ingenious contrivances; particularly the computation by Napier’s Rods, or Bones, as they are called, and several other curious and short methods that are given in his “Rabdologia” and at length, after trials of many other means, the most complete one of logarithms, in the actual construction of a large table of numbers in arithmetical progression, adapted to a set of as many others in geometrical progression. The property of such numbers had been long known, viz. that the addition of the former answered to the multiplication of the latter, &c. but it wanted the necessity of such very troublesome calculations as those abovementioned, joined to an ardent disposition, to make such a use of that property. Perhaps also this disposition was urged into action by certain attempts of this kind which it seems were made elsewhere; such as the following, related by Wood 'in his “Athenae Oxonienses,” under the article Briggs, on the authority of Oughtred and Wingate, viz. “That one Dr. Craig, a Scotchman, coming out of Denmark into his own country, called upon John Neper baron of Marcheston near Edinburgh, and told him, among other discourses, of a new invention in Denmark, (by Longomontanus as ‘tis said) to save the tedious multiplication and division in astronomical calculations. Neper being solicitous to know farther of him concerning this matter, he could give no other account of it, than that it was by proportionable numbers. Which hint Neper taking, he desired him at his return to call upon him again. Craig, after some weeks had passed, did so, and Neper then shewed him a rude draught of that he called ’ Canon Mirabilis Logarithmorum.' Which draught, with some alterations, he printed in 1614; it came forthwith into the hands of our authorBriggs, and into thoseof William Oughtred, from whom the relation of this matter came.”

Whatever might be the inducement, however, Napier published his invention in 1614, under the title of “Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio,” &c. containing the construction and canon of his logarithms, which are those of the kind that is called hyperbolic. This work coming presently to the hands of Mr. Briggs, then Professor of Geometry at Gresham College in London, he immediately gave it the greatest encouragement, teaching the nature of the logarithms in his public lectures; and at the same time recommending a change in the scale of them, by which they might be advantageously altered to the kind which he afterwards computed himself, which are thence called Briggs’s Logarithms, and are those now in common use. Mr. Briggs also presently wrote to lord Napier upon this proposed change, and made journeys to Scotland the two following years, to visit Napier, and consult him about that alteration, before he set, about making it. Briggs, in a letter to archbishop Usher, March 10, 1615, writes thus: “Napier lord of Markinston, hath set my head and hands at work with his new and admirable logarithms. I hope to see him this summer, if it please God; for I never saw a book which pleased me better, and made me more wonder.” Briggs accordingly paid him the visit, and staid a month with him.

The following passage, from the life of Lilly the astrologer, contains a curious account of the meeting of those two illustrious men. “I will acquaint you,” says Lilly, “with one memorable story related unto me by John Marr, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive you remember. He was, servant to king James and Charles the First. At first when the lord Napier, or Marchiston, made public his logarithms, Mr. Briggs, then reader of the astronomy lectures at Gresham college in London, was so surprised with admiration of them, that he could have no quietness in himself until he had seen that noble person the lord Marchiston, whose only invention they were: he acquaints John Marr herewith, who went into Scotland before Mr. Briggs, purposely to be there when these two so learned persons should meet. Mr. Briggs appoints a certain day when to meet at Edinburgh; but failing thereof, the lord Napier was doubtful he would not come. It happened one day as John Marr and the lord Napier were speaking of Mr. Briggs; `Ah, John,‘ said Marchiston, `Mr. Briggs will not now come.’ At the very instant one knocks at the gate; John Marr hasted down, and it proved Mr. Briggs, to his great contentment. He brings Mr. Briggs up into my lord’s chamber, where almost one quarter of an hour was spent, each beholding other almost with admiration before one word was spoke. At last Mr. Briggs began: ‘My lord, I have undertaken this long journey purposely to see your person, and to know by what engine of wit or ingenuity you came first to think of this most excellent help into astronomy, viz. the logarithms; but, my lord, being by you found out, I wonder no body else found it out before, when now known it is so easy.’ He was nobly entertained by the lord Napier; and every summer after that, during the lord’s being alive, this venerable man Mr. Briggs went purposely into Scotland to visit him.”

Napier made also considerable improvements in spherical trigonometry, &c. particularly by his Catholic or Universal Rule, being a general theorem, by which he resolves all the cases of right-angled spherical triangles in a manner very simple, and easy to be remembered, namely, by what he calls the Five Circular Parts. His construction of Logarithms too, beside the labour of them, manifests the greatest ingenuity. Kepler dedicated his Ephemerides to Napier, which were published in 1617; and it appears from many passages in his letter about this time, that he accounted Napier to be the greatest man of his age in the particular department to which he applied his abilities.

The last literary exertion of this eminent person was the publication of his “Rabdology and Promptuary,” in 1617; soon after which he died at Marchiston, the 3d of April in the same year, in the 68th year of his age. The list of his works is as follows: 1. “A Plain Discovery of the Revelation of St. John,” 1593. 2. “Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio,” 1614. 3. “Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Constructio; et eorum ad Naturales ipsorum nu*­meros habitudines; una cum appendice, de alia eaque praestantiore Logarithmorum specie condenda. Quibus accessere propositiones ad triangula sphserica faciliore calculo resolvenda. Una cum Annotationibus aliquot doctissimi D. Henrici Briggii in eas, et memoratam appendicem.” Published by the author’s son in 1619. 4. “Rabdologia, sen Numerations per Virgulas, libri duo,” 1617. This contains the description and use of the Bones or Rods; with several other short and ingenious modes of calculation. 5. His Letter to Anthony Bacon (the original of which is in the archbishop’s library at Lambeth), entitled, “Se­”cret Inventions, profitable and necessary in these days for the Defence of this Island, and withstanding strangers enemies to God’s truth and religion" dated June 2, 1596.

, an Italian historian, was born of a noble family of Florence, in 1476. Having espoused the cause of the liberties of his country, when the Medici family gained the ascendancy, he was banished, and his property confiscated. He then went to Venice, where he passed the rest of his days in composing his various works, particularly his history of Florence, “L'Istorie de Firenze, dal 1494 sino al 1531,” &c. 1532, 4to, which bears a great character for style; but, from his being the decided enemy of the house of Medici, must probably be read with some caution; nor was it published until fifty years after his death. He acquired great reputation also by his translation of Livy, which is considered as one of the best versions of the ancient authors in the Italian language. It was first printed in 1547; but the best editions are those of 1554 and 1575, in which last there is a supplement to the second decade by Turchi. Apostolo Zeno laments, that after Nardi had been banished his country, his works should also be banished from the vocabulary della Crusca. These academicians quote him but once, under the word pronunziare. He certainly deserved not such contempt, if it was out of contempt they neglected him. Nardi, in his youth, had distinguished himself as a soldier, and shows great knowledge and experience in military affairs, in a Life of the celebrated commander Malespini, printed at Florence, 1597, 4to. He was the author of several other works, both in prose and verse, and is supposed to have given the first example of the versi sciolti, or Italian blank verse. He is thought to have died about 1555, far advanced in age.

, doctor of music, an eminent composer and teacher in that science, under whom some of the first musicians of the present day received the whole or part of their education, was tfce son of Mr. Nares, who was, for many years, steward to Montague and Willoughby, earl* of Abingdon. He was born, as well as his brother, the late Mr. Justice Nares, at Stanwell in Middlesex; the former in 1715, the latter in 1716. His musical education he commenced under Mr. Gates, then master of the royal choristers; and completed it under the celebrated Dr. Pepusch. Thus prepared, he officiated, for some time, as deputy to Mr. Pigott, organist of Windsor; but, on the resignation of Mr. Salisbury, organist of York, in 1734, was chosen to succeed him, being then only nineteen. It is related, on undoubted authority, that, when the old musician first saw his intended successor, he said, rather angrily, “What! is that child to succeed me?” which being mentioned to the organist-elect, he took an early opportunity, on a difficult service being appointed, to play it throughout half a note below the pitch, which brought it into a key with seven sharps; and went through it without the slightest error. Being asked why he did so, he said, that “he only wished to shew Mr. Salisbury what a child could do.” His knowledge in all branches of his profession was equal to his practical skill in this instance; and, during his residence at York, where he was abundantly employed as a teacher, and where he married, Mr. Nares, by his good conduct, as well as professional merit, obtained many powerful friends. Among the foremost of these was Dr. Fontayne, the late venerable dean of York; who, when Dr. Green died, towards the latter end of 1755, exerted his interest so successfully, that he obtained for him the united places of organist and composer to his majesty. He removed, therefore, to London in the beginning of 1756; and, about the same time, was created doctor in music at Cambridge.

On the resignation of Mr. Gates, in 1757, Dr. Nares obtained also the place of master of the choristers; which having been, for a long time, without increase, notwithstanding the increase of expences attending it, was, by royal favour, augmented about 1775, first with the salary of the violist, and, on the revival of that place for Mr. Crosdill, in 1777, with that of lutanist, which was annexed to it for ever. It was in this situation, that Dr. Nares superintended the education of many pupils, who have since become famous particularly Dr. Arnold, who, though with him only for a short time, was highly distinguished by him for talents and application. The anthems and services which Dr. Nares produced, as composer to the royal chapel, were very numerous; many of them have since been printed, and many which exist only in ms. still continue to be performed in the choirs with much effect. Having been originally a musician rather by accident than choice, with very strong talents and propensities also for literature, Dr. Nares was particularly attentive to express the sense of the words he undertook to set; and was the first who attempted to compose the Te Deum, for the choir- service, in such a manner as to set off the sentiments it contains to advantage. Before his lime, it had been set rather to a regular strain of chaunt than to any expressive melodies. The merits of Dr. Nares were not overlooked by his royal patrons, whom he had occasionally the honour to attend in private, though not a part of his regular duty. To manifest his respect and gratitude for them, he composed his dramatic ode, entitled “The Royal Pastoral,” the words of which were written by Mr. Bellamy, author of a book entitled “Ethic Amusements.” In July 1780, Dr. Nares was obliged, by declining health, to resign the care of the choristers, in which place he was succeeded by Dr. Ayrton, his pupil and valued friend. In his sixty-eighth year, a constitution, never robust, gave way, and he died on Feb. 10, 1783, deeply regretted by his affectionate family, of which the present representative, the rev. Robert Nares, archdeacon of Stafford, is well known in the literary world, and not more known than respected. Testimony has been borne to the merits of Dr. Nares by several writers, but more particularly by Mr. Mason, in his preface to a book of anthems, printed for the use of York-cathedral; and, in his late Essays on Church Music, p. 138. The late lord Mornington, so well known for musical talents, frequently consulted him; and sir John Hawkins derived advantage from his acquaintance, in the progress of his “History of Music.” Throughout life, he was not less respected as a man than admired as a musician; he had a vivacity that rendered his society always pleasing; and a generous contempt for every thing base, that manifested itself on all proper occasions, and very justly commanded esteem.

His printed works are these 1 “Eight sets of Lessons for the Harpsichord dedicated to the right honourable Willoughby earl of Abingdon printed in 1748, reprinted in 1757.” 2. “Five Lessons for the Harpsichord, with a sonata in score for the harpsichord or organ; dedicated to the right honourable the countess of Carlisle;” published in 1758 or 1759. 3. “A set of easy Lessons for the Harpsichord,” three in number; with a dedication to the public, signed J. N. 4. “A Treatise on Singing,” small size. 5. “II Principio” or “.A regular introductionto playing on the Harpsichord or Organ.” This was the first set of progressive lessons published on a regular plan. 6. “The Royal Pastoral, a dramatic ode; dedicated to his royal highness the prince of Wales; printed in score, with an overture and choruses. 7.” Catches, Canons, and Glees; dedicated to the late lord Mornington.“8.” Six Fugues, with introductory voluntaries forMhe Organ or Harpsichord.“9.” A concise and easy treatise on Singing, with a set of English Duets for beginners;“- a different work from the former small treatise. 10.” Twenty Anthems, in score, for one, two, three, four, and rive voices composed for the use of his majesty’s chapels royal,“1778. 11.” Six, easy Anthems, with a favourite Morning and Evening Service,“left for publication at his death, and published in 1738, with a portrait and a concise account of the author. Of these compositions the following short character is given by an eminent musician, to whom they are all well known.” The Lessons are composed in a masterly and pleasing style; free from those tricks and unmeaning successions of semitones, to which a good ear and sound judgment never can be reconciled. The treatises on singing contain duets composed for the use of the children of the royal chapels, superior to any thing yet published and such as every teacher ought to peruse. His catches, canons, and glees, are natural and pleasing especially the glee to all Lovers of Harmony, which gained the prize-medal at the catch-club in 1770. The Royal Pastoral is composed throughout in a very masterly manner; particularly the choruses, with which each part concludes. This ode, containing 108 pages, was written, and all the vocal and instrumental parts transcribed for performing, within twelve days. The six fugues, with introductory voluntaries for the organ, contain the strongest proofs of ingenuity and judgment; few, if any, have ever been written that can be preferred to them. In both sets of the anthems, the same characteristics appear; and the service in the latter very justly acquired the title of favourite; nor can there be any doubt that the works of this author will be admired as long as a taste for music shall subsist."

Besides the pieces above mentioned, a complete set of church services, in the key of F, and three full anthems, were published in 1790, by Dr. Arnold, in his “Collection of Cathedral Music,” vol. III. In these services the doctor first displayed his great skill in setting words. Several other compositions of much merit still remain in manuscript. The chief of these are an “Ode on the Death of Handel, in score, with choruses” and a great part of Dr. Brown’s “Cure of Saul,” composed as a regular oratorio; from which work Dr. Nares desisted out of regard to his friend and pupil, Dr. Arnold, by whom it was also undertaken, and completed in a masterly manner.

, an Irish Roman catholic divine, of great learning, was born in the county of Kildare in 1660, and educated at Naas, in that county. In 1684 he received priest’s orders in the town of Kilkenny, and the year following went to Paris to pursue his studies in the Irish college, of which he was made afterwards provisor for about seven years. He took the degree of LL. D. in 1694, in the college of Cambray, and returning to London two years after, was appointed tutor to the earl of Antrim. He was afterwards made parish priest of St. Michan’s in Dublin, in which station he continued till his death, March 3, 1738. His principal works, rather numerous, were of the controversial kind, in defence of popery against Mr. Clayton and others, who acknowledged his learning as well as the politeness of his style and moderation of his sentiments. It was this quality which enabled him to have his works printed both at Dublin and London without molestation. Those that are not strictly of the controversial kind were, 1 “The New Testament translated into English from the Latin, with marginal notes,” Lond. 1705, 1718, 8vo. 2. “A new History of the World; containing an historical and chronological account of the times and transactions from the creation to the birth of Christ, according to the computation of the Septuagint,” &c. Dublin, 1720, fol.

a very extraordinary personage, was born at Swansea, in Glamorganshire, Oct. 18, 1674. His father was a gentleman, whose principal income arose from a partnership in a glass-house: his mother was niece to colonel Poyer, who was killed by Oliver Cromwell, for defending Pembroke-castle against the rebels. He was educated at Carmarthen-school, and thence sent to Jesus college, Oxford, in order to prepare him for the study of the law. His father had strained his little income to give his son such an education; and from the boy’s natural vivacity, he hoped a recompence from his future preferment. In college, however, he soon shewed, that, though much might be expected from his genius, nothing could be hoped from his industry. The first method Nash took to distinguish himself at college was not by application to study, but by assiduity in intrigue. Our hero was quickly caught, and went through all the mazes and adventures of a college intrigue, before he was seventeen he offered marriage, the offer was accepted but, the affair coming to the knowledge of his tutors, his happiness, or perhaps misery, was prevented, and he was sent home from college, with necessary advice to him, and proper instructions to his father. He now purchased a pair of colours, commenced a professed admirer of the sex, and dressed to the very edge of his finances; but soon becoming disgusted with the life of a soldier, quitted the army, entered his name as a student in the Temple-books, and here went to the very summit of second-rate luxury. He spent some years about town, till at last, his genteel appearance, his constant civility, and still more his assiduity, gained him the acquaintance of several persons qualified to lead the fashion both by birth and fortune. He brought a person genteelly dressed to every assembly; he always made one of those who are called good company; and assurance gave him an air of elegance and ease.

When king William was upon the throne Nash was a member of the Middle Temple. It had been long customary for the inns of court to entertain our monarchs, upon their accession to the crown, or any remarkable occasion, with a revel and pageant. In the early periods of our history, poets were the conductors of these entertainments; plays were exhibited, and complimentary verses were then written but, by degrees, the pageant alone was continued^ sir John Davis being the last poet that wrote verses upon such an occasion, in the reign of James I. This ceremony, which has been at length totally discontinued, was last exhibited in honour of king William; and Nash was chosen to conduct the whole with proper decorum. He was then but a very young man; but at an early age he was thought proper to guide the amusements of his country, and be the arbiter elegantiarum of his time. In conducting this entertainment he had an opportunity of exhibiting all his abilities; and king William was so well satisfied with his performance, that he made him an offer of knighthood. This, however, he thought proper torefuse, which, in a person of his disposition, seems strange. “Please your majesty,” replied he, “if you intend to make me a knight, I wish it may be one of your poor knights of Windsor; and then I shall have a fortune, at least able to support my title.” Yet we do not find that the king took the hint of increasing his fortune; perhaps he could not; he had, at that time, numbers to oblige, and he never cared to give money without important services.

But though Nash acquired no riches by his late office, he gained many friends; or, what is more easily obtained, many acquaintances, who often answer the end as well, and, besides his assurance, he had in reality some merit and some virtues. He was, if not a brilliant, at least an agreeable companion. He never forgot good manners, even in the highest warmth of familiarity, and, as we hinted before, never went in a dirty shirt, to disgrace the table of his patron or his friend. “These qualifications,” says his biographer, “might make the furniture of his head; but, for his heart, that seemed an assemblage of the virtues which display an honest benevolent mind; with the vices which spring from too much goocl nature.” He had pity for every creature’s distress, but wanted pru­dence in the application of his benefits. He had generosity for the wretched in the highest degree, at a time when his creditors complained of his justice*. An instance of his humanity is told us in the “Spectator,” though his name is not mentioned. When he was to give in his accounts to the masters of the Temple, among other articles, he charged, "For making one man happy, Jo/. Being questioned about the meaning of so strange an item, he frankly declared, that, happening to over-hear a poor man declare to his wife and a large family of children, that lOl. would make him happy, he could not avoid trying the experiment. He added, that, if they did not -chuse to acquiesce in his charge, he was ready to refund the money. The masters, struck with such an uncommon instance of good nature, publicly thanked him for his benevolence, and desired that the sum might be doubled, as a proof of their satisfaction.

Nash was now fairly for life entered into a new course of gaiety and dissipation, and steady in nothing but in the pursuit of variety. He was thirty years old, without fortune, or useful talents to acquire one. He had hitherto only led a life of expedients; he thanked choice alone for his support; and, having been long precariously supported, he became, at length, totally a stranger to prudence or precaution. Not to disguise any part of his character, he was now, hy profession, a gamester; and went on from day to day, feeling the vicissitudes of rapture and anguish in proportion to the fluctuations of fortune. About 1703 the city of Bath became, in some measure, frequented by people of distinction. The company was numerous enough to form a country-dance upon the bowling-green; they were amused with a fiddle and hautboy, and diverted with the romantic walks round the city. They usually sauntered in fine weather in the grove, between two rows of sycamore trees. Several learned physicians, Dr. Jordan and others, had even then praised the salubrity of the wells; and the amusements were put under the direction of a master of the ceremonies. Captain Webster was the predecessor of Mr. Nash. This gentleman, in 1704, carried the balls to the town-hall, each man paying half-a-guinea each ball. One of the greatest physicians of his age conceived a design of ruining the city, by writing against the efficacy of the waters; and accordingly published a pamphlet, by which, he said, “he would cast a toad into the spring.”

In this situation things were when Nash first came into the city; and, hearing the threat of this physician, he humourously assured the people, that if they would give him leave, he would charm away the poison of the doctor’s toad, as they usually charmed the venom of the tarantula, by music. He therefore was immediately empowered to set up a band of music against the doctor’s reptile; the company very sensibly increased, Nash triumphed, and the sovereignty of the city was decreed to him by every rank of people. None could possibly conceive a person more fit to fill this employment than Nash: he had some wit, but it was of that sort which is rather happy than permanent. He was charitable himself, and generally shamed his betters into a similitude of sentiment, if they were not naturally so before. His first care, when made master of the ceremonies, or king of Bath, as it is called, was to promote a music subscription, of one guinea each, for a band, which was to consist of six performers, who were to receive a guinea a week each for their trouble. He allowed also two guineas a week for lighting and sweeping the rooms, for which he accounted to the subscribers by receipt. By his direction, one Thomas Harrison erected a handsome assembly-house for these purposes. A better band of music was also procured, and the former subscription of one guinea was raised to two. Harrison had three guineas a week for the room and candles, and the music two guineas a man. The money Nash received and accounted for with the utmost exactness and punctuality. The balls, by his direction, were to begin at six, and to end at eleven. Nor would he suffer them to continue a moment longer, lest invalids might commit irregularities, to counteract the benefit of the waters. The city of Bath, by such assiduity, soon became the theatre of summer amusements for all people of fashion; and the manner of spending the day there must amuse any but such as disease or spleen had made uneasy to themselves. In this manner every amusement soon improved under Nash’s administration. The magistrates of the city found that it was necessary and useful, and took every opportunity of paying the same respect to his fictitious royalty, that is generally extorted by real power. His equipage was sumptuous, and he used to travel to Tunbridge in a postchariot and six greys, with out-riders, footmen, French horns, and every other appendage of expensive parade. He always wore a white hat; and, to apologize for this singularity, said he did it purely to secure it from being stolen; his dress was tawdry, and not perfectly genteel; he might be considered as a beau of several generations; and, in his appearance, he, in some measure, mixed the fashions of a former age with those of his own. He perfectly understood elegant expence, and generally passed his time in the very best company, if persons of the first distinction deserve that title.

But perhaps the reader may demand, what finances were to support all this finery, or where the treasures that gave him such frequent opportunities of displaying his benevolence, or his vanity? To answer this, we must now enter upon another part of his character, his talents as a gamester; for, by gaming alone, at the period of which we speak, he kept up so very genteel an appearance. Wherever' people of fashion came, needy adventurers were generally found in waiting. With such Bath swarmed, and, among this class, Nash was certainly to be numbered in the beginning; only with this difference, that he wanted the corrupt heart, too commonly attending a life of expedients; for he was generous, humane, and honourable, even though by profession a gamester. But, whatever skill Nash might have acquired by long practice in play, he was never formed by nature for a successful gamester. He was constitutionally passionate and generous. While others made considerable fortunes at the gaming-table, he was ever in the power of chance; nor did even the intimacy with which he was received by the great, place him in a state of independence. The considerable inconveniences that were found to result from a permission of gaming, at length attracted the attention of the legislature; and, in the twelfth year of his late majesty, the most prevalent games at that time were declared fraudulent and unlawful. The Eo was at first set up at Tunbridge, and was reckoned extremely profitable to the bank, as it gained two and a half per cent, on all that was lost or won. As all gaming was suppressed but this, Nash was now utterly destitute of any resource from superior skill and long experience in the art. The money to be gained in private gaming is at best but trifling, and the opportunity precarious. The minds of the generality of mankind shrink with their circumstances and Nash, upon the immediate prospect of poverty, was now mean enough to enter into a base confederacy to evade the law, and to share the plunder. Nash had hitherto enjoyed a fluctuating fortune; and, had he taken the advantage of the present opportunity, he might have been for the future not only above want, but even in circumstances of opulence. In the mean time, as the Eo table thus succeeded at Tunbridge, he was resolved to introduce it at Bath; and previously asked the opinion of several lawyers, who declared it no way illegal. The legislature thought proper to suppress these seminaries of vice. It was enacted, that, after the 24th of June 1745, none should be permitted to keep a house, room, or place for playing, upon pain of such forfeitures as were declared in former acts instituted for that purpose.

By this wise and just act, all Nash’s future hopes of succeeding by the tables were blown up. From that time, we find him involved in continual disputes, every day calumniated with some new slander, and continually endeavouring to obviate its effects. Nature had by no means formed him for a beau garq on: his person was clumsy, too large, and awkward, and his features harsh, strong, and peculiarly irregular; yet even with those disadvantages he made love, became an universal admirer of the sex, and was universally admired. He was possessed, at least, of some requisites of a lover. He had assiduity, flattery, fine clothes, and as much wit as the ladies he addressed. Wit, flattery, and fine clothes, he used to say, were enough to debauch a nunnery. He did not long continue an universal gallant but,in the earlier years of his reign, entirely gave up his endeavours to deceive the sex, in order to become the honest protector of their innocence, the guardian of their reputation, and a friend to their virtue. This was a character he bore for many years, and supported it with integrity, assiduity, and success; and he not only took care, during his administration, to protect the ladies from the insults of our sex, but to guard them from the slanders of each other. He, in the first place, prevented any animosities that might arise from place and precedence, by being previously acquainted with the rank and quality of almost every family in the British dominions. He endeavoured to render scandal odious, by marking it as the result of envy and folly united. Whatever might have been his other excellences, there was one in which few exceeded him, his extensive humanity. None felt pity more strongly, and none made greater efforts to relieve distress. “If we were,” says his biographer, “to name any reigning and fashionable virtue in the present age, it should be charity. We know not whether it may not be spreading the influence of Nash too widely, to say, that he was one of the principal causes of introducing this noble v emulation among the rich; but certain it is, no private man ever relieved the distresses of so many as he.” Before gaming was suppressed, and in the meridian of his life and fortune, his benefactions were generally found to equal his other expences. The money he got without pain, he gave away without reluctance; and, when unable to relieve a wretch who sued for assistance, he has been often seen to shed tears. A gentleman of broken fortune, one day standing behind his chair, as he was playing a game of piquet for 200l. and observing with what indifference he won the money, could not avoid whispering these words to another who stood by, “Heavens! how happy would all that money make me!” Nash, overhearing him, clapped the money into his hand, and cried, “Go, and be happy.” In the severe winter of 1739, his charity was great, useful, and extensive. He frequently, at that season of calamity, entered the houses of the poor, whom he thought too proud to beg, and generously relieved them. But of all the instances of Nash’s bounty, none does him more real honour, than the pains he took in establishing an hospital at Bath; in which benefaction, however, Dr. Oliver had a great share. This was one of those wellguided charities, dictated by reason, and supported by prudence, chiefly by the means of Dr. Oliver and Mr. Nash; but not without the assistance of Mr. Allen, who gave them the stones for building, and other benefactions. As Nash grew old, he grew insolent, and seemed not aware of the pain his attempts to be a wit gave others. He grew peevish and fretful; and they, who only saw the remnant of a man, severely returned that laughter upon him, which he had once lavished upon others. Poor Nash was no longer the gay, thoughtless, idly industrious creature he once was; he now forgot how to supply new modes of entertainment, and became too rigid to wind with ease through the vicissitudes of fashion. The evening of his life began to grow cloudy. His fortune was gone, and nothing but poverty lay in prospect. He now began to want that charity, which he had never refused to any; and to find, that a life of dissipation and gaiety is ever terminated by misery and regret. He was now past the power of giving or receiving pleasure, for he was poor, old, and peevish; yet still he was incapable of turning from his former manner of life to pursue happiness. An old man thus striving after pleasure is indeed an object of pity; but a man at once old and poor, running on in this pursuit, might excite astonishment.

A variety of causes concurred to embitter his departing life. His health began to fail. He had received from nature a robust and happy constitution, that was scarcely even to be impaired by intemperance. For some time before his decease, nature gave warning of his approaching dissolution. Theworn machine had run itself down to an utter impossibility of repair he saw that he must die, and shuddered at the thought. Fortitude was not among the number of his virtues. Anxious, timid, his thoughts still hanging on a receding world, he desired to enjoy a little longer that life, the miseries of which he had experienced so long. The poor unsuccessful gamester husbanded the wasting moments with an increased desire to continue the game; and, to the last, eagerly wished for one yet more happy throw. He died at his house in St. John’s court, Bath, Feb. 3, 1761, aged 87. His death was sincerely regretted by the city, to which he had been so long and so great a benefactor. After the corpse had lain four days, it was conveyed to the abbey-church in that city, with a solemnity peculiar to his character. The few things he was possessed of were left to his relations. A small library of well- chosen books, some trinkets and pictures, were his only inheritance. Among the latter were, a gold box, given by the late countess of Burlington, with lady Euston’s picture in the lid; an agate etui, with a diamond on the top, by the princess dowager of Wales; and some things of no great value. The rings, watches, and pictures, which he formerly received from others, would have come to a considerable amount; but these his necessities had obliged him to dispose of: some family-pictures, however, remained, which were sold by advertisement, for five guineas each, after his decease.

In domestic life, among his servants and dependants, where no gloss was required to colour his sentiments and disposition, nor any ma^k necessary to conceal his foibles, he was ever fond of promoting the interests of his servants and dependants, and making them happy. In his own house, no man was perhaps more regular, cheerful, and beneficent. His table was always free to those who sought his friendship, or wanted a dinner. As his thoughts were entirely employed in the affairs of his government, he was seldom at home but at the time of eating or of rest. His table was well served, but his entertainment consisted principally of plain dishes. He generally arose early in the morning, being seldom in bed after five; and, to avoid disturbing the family, and depriving his servants of their rest, he had the fire laid after he was in bed, and, in the morning, lighted it himself, and sat down to read some of his few, but well-chosen books. His generosity and charity in private life, though not so conspicuous, was as great as that in public, and indeed far more considerable than his little income would admit of. Such is nearly the account given of this singular character in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, the omission of which might perhaps be felt by some of our readers, while others may justly doubt if the life of such a man has fair claims on our attention. It contains, however, some portion of amusement, and some of moral tendency. Our account is a very brief abridgment of the Life of Nash, published by Goldsmith, who, it has been observed, tortured his genius to give substance to inanity, and strained to describe the gaudy hue of a butterfly, the glittering tinsel of a beau, the sentiments of a man devoid of all reflection, and the principles of an idler, whose walk of life never transgressed the eternal circle of gallantry, gambling, and the insipid round of fashionable dissipation. This account, however, is perhaps not more a satire on Nash, than on the age in which he lived.

, a dramatic poet and satirist of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born at the sea-port town of Leostoff, in Suffolk, probably about 1564, and was descended from a family whose residence was in Hertfordshire. He received his education at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585. If we may judge from his pamphlet, entitled “Pierce Penniless,” which, though written with a considerable spirit, seems to breathe the sentiments of a man in the height of despair and rage against the world, it appears probable that he had met with many disappointments and much distress, which, from the character of his companion Robert Greene (see Greene), it is most likely arose from his own indiscretions; his “Pierce Penniless” might be no less a picture of himself, than the recantation pieces we have noticed in our account of Greene. It appears from a very scarce pamphlet, entitled “The Trimming of Tho. Nashe, gentleman, by the high tituled patron Don Richardo de Medico Campo, Barber Chirurgeon to Trinity college in Cambridge,” 1597, 4to, that Nash was, that year, in confinement on account of his having written a play, called, “The Isle of Dogs;” that while he was at Cambridge, he wrote part of a show, called “Terminus et noji Terminus,” for which the person, who was concerned with him in that composition, was expelled; that Nash left his college when he was seven years standing, and before he had taken his master’s degree, about 1587; and that after his arrival in London, he was often confined in different gaols.

He died either in 1600 or 1601; for he published one of his pamphlets in 1599, and he is spoken of as dead in an old comedy, called “The Return from Parnassus,” which was written in 1602. But before 1600, he seems to have altered the course of his life, and to have become a penitent. In a pamphlet, entitled “Christ’s Tears over Jerusalem,” printed before the end of the sixteenth century, he says, in a dedication to lady Elizabeth Gary, “A hundred unfortunate farewels to fantasticall satirisme. In those vaines heretofore I mis-spent my spirit, and prodigally conspired against good houres. Nothing is there now so much in my vowes as to be at peace with all men, and make submissive amends where I have most displeased. Again. To a little more wit have my increasing yeeres reclaimed mee then I had before: those that have beene perverted by any of my workes, let them reade this, and it shall thrice more benefit them. The autumne I imitate, in sheading my leaves with the trees, and so doth the peacock shead his taile,” &c.

As a satirist, his most virulent paper-war was carried on with Gabriel Harvey, particularly in his tract, entitled “Have with you to Saffron-Walden,” which was Harvey’s residence. His dramatic pieces were only three “Dido, queen of Carthage,” a tragedy, 1594, 4to 2. “Summer’s Last Will and Testament,” a comedy, 1600, 4to and “The Isle of Dogs,” above-mentioned, not published. He engaged on the side of the church against Martin Marprelate; and the following are supposed to have formed his share of this controversy: “A Countercuffe given to Martin, junior,” &c.; “Martin’s month’s minde” “The Returne of the renowned cavaliero Pasquill of England,” &c. all published in 1589, 4to, and analyzed, with specimens, in vol. II. of the “Bibliographer.” Nash wrote with considerable ease, harmony, and energy, yet Ma lone says, that “of all the writers of the age of queen Elizabeth, Nash is the most licentious in his language; perpetually distorting words from their primitive signification, in a manner often puerile and ridiculous, but more frequently incomprehensible and absurd.” He pleased his own age, however, for we find that his “Have with you to Saffron-Walden,” passed through six editions; and an eminent poetical critic and antiquary thinks that Malone must have formed his severe censure of Nash from this piece, which was intended to ridicule the inflated and turgid language of Harvey, in his astrological tracts. The style of “Pierce Penniless,” adds sir E. Brydges, is very dissimilar, and his “Address to the two Universities,” published in 1589, is written in a vein of spirited and judicious criticism, of which the English language has no contemporary example.

The late historian of Worcestershire, Dr. Treadway-Russel Nash, appears to have been a descendant, or somehow related to Thomas Nash, but of himself few memorials have been given to the public. His “History of Worcestershire” was published in 2 vols. fol. 1781 and 1784 and his edition of “Hudibras,” in 1793, 3 vols. 4to. He was of Worcester college, Oxford, M. A. 1746, and B. and D. D. 1758. He died at his seat at Bevere, near Worcester, Jan. 26, 1811, in his eighty-sixth year.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was born in 1740, at Norwich, of reputable parents. His father, who was of a Scotch family, had his son’s grammatical education completed at Amsterdam. Thence he was removed to Bene't college, Cambridge, where his ingenuous and open temper gained him the love and esteem of the whole society, who elected him a fellow, after he had taken his degree of B. A. in 1764. In 1767 he took the degree of M. A. and was frequently honoured for his application and proficiency in every branch of academic studies. Having entered into holy orders, he served the sequestration of Hinxton in Cambridgeshire for some years, to which he was presented by bishop Mavvson, and was junior proctor of the university in 1771. He was afterwards elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and became one of his majesty’s justices of peace for the county of Cambridge. In this situation he was eminently conspicuous for his correct knowledge and mild administration of the laws; and he filled the office of chairman at the sessions of Cambridge and Ely with moderation, justice, and impartiality, at once distinguishing himself as the gentleman, the lawyer, and the divine.

Having been early engaged to a daughter of Mr. Salmon, a clergyman near Norwich, and sister to Mr. Salmon, a fellow of his own college, and then chaplain to one of our factories in the East Indies, he accepted the rectory of St. Mary Abchurch in London, in 1773, which Mr. Forster had vacated by preferment in Devonshire. This, however, he held only about a year, when, by permission of the college and the bishop of Ely, he exchanged it for Snailwell in Cambridgeshire, with Dr. John Warren, afterwards bishop of Bangor. He took his degree of D. D. in 1797. His last preferment was the rectory of Leveringtori, in the Isle of Ely, where he died Oct. 16, 1808, in the sixtyeighth year of his age.

Besides an “Assize Sermon” preached at Wisbeach, 1796 an admirable charge “On the Duties of the Overseers of the Poor,” delivered by him as chairman of the quarter sessions in 1799; and “An Examination of the Statutes now in force, relating to the Assize of Bread,” 1800, 8vo, the learned world has been indebted to him for some works of much utility. After having with great skill and industry ranged and methodized the Mss. in archbishop Parker’s library at Bene't college, he printed at the university press, in 1777, a catalogue of them, in 4to, with a Latin preface, and an etching of the archbishop by his friend Mr. Tyson. The college bore the expence of this very correct and useful catalogue. In 1778, Dr. Nasmith published an edition in octavo of the “Itineraries of Symon, son of Simeon, and William of Worcester,” with a tract on Leonine verses, from Parker’s Mss. About ten years afterwards he completed his new edition of Tanner’s “Notitia Monastica,” to which he made very considerable additions, but blended with Tanner’s labours in such a way as to prevent our discovering the new from the old, nor is it entirely free from errors. It is, however, upon the whole a very considerable acquisition to the public, and has of late years, risen in value. It is somewhat remarkable that he laments his not being able to avail himself of Mr. Cole’s Mss, which were then locked up in the British Museum, and in which he would have had the pleasure of reading the greater part of the account we have now given of his life and works.

, a learned rabbi, who flourished in the fifteenth century, was the first Jew who compiled a Hebrew concordance to the bible, principally, as he allowed, from Latin concordances. It was entitled “Light to the Path,” or “Meir Netib,” and was first printed at Venice in 1524, reprinted afterwards in a more correct state, with a Talmudical index, at Basil, in 1581, and at Rome, by Calasio, in 1622, in four volumes folio. Buxtorf the elder published at Basil in 1632 another, and the best edition; after which it was edited by Mr. Romaine and his coadjutors, as we have noticed in our account of Calasio. When Nathan died is not specified. He was employed on his concordance from 1438 to 1448.

, an Italian lawyer, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, was born of a noble family, at Asti, and studied law at Pavia. He made so great progress in literature, as to receive the academical honours of his profession before he had reached his twenty-fourth year, and was at the same time advanced to be senator at Casal. Pavia offered him the professorship of civil law, but he preferred his studious retirement at Genoa, where he probably died. His principal works are “De Pulchro” “De Deo,” in fifteen books“”De immortalitateAnimi“”De Passione Domini." Each of these makes a folio, printed 1553 1587.

, a learned French writer and bibliographer, was born at Paris in the beginning of February 1600, and having discovered a strong inclination in his earliest years for reading, his parents determined to give him every benefit of education. After studying Latin, and being initiated in the principles of religion, in a community of the religious, he was sent to the university, where he made such proficiency in humanity and philosophy, as to be admitted to the degree of master of arts much before the usual age. He then, principally by the advice of his friends, began to study with a view to the church; but this was not agreeable to his sentiments, which were more free in matters of religion than consisted with a cordial profession of the prevailing tenets. He therefore soon preferred the study of medicine, and in 1626 attended the lectures with such application as to acquire a name in the world. Henry de Mesmes, president-a-mortier, hearing of him, appointed him to that for which it appeared afterwards he was best qualified, the office of librarian; and it was for this patron’s use that he wrote his excellent little work, entitled “Avis pour dresser une Bibliotheque,” printed at Paris in 1627, and again in 1644, with Louis Jacob’s “Traite des plus belles Bibliotheques.”

According to Niceron, he went in 1626 to study at Padua; but others think this was in 1624, and that on his return he printed one of his most curious works, his “Apologie pour les grands hommes soupgonnes de magie.” 1625, 8vo. Although we cannot agree with Voltaire, that this is the only one of his works which continues to be read, it is perhaps the most generally known, and shews that he had risen considerably above tire prejudices of his times. The eminent characters accused of dealing in magic, whom he defends in this work, are, Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Numa Pompilius, Democritus, Empedocles, Apollonius, Socrates, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Chicus, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Cardanus, Alchindus, Geber, Artephius, Thebit, Anselmus Parmensis, Raymond Lully, Arnaldus Villanovanus, Peter ab Apono, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, Merlin, Savonarola, Nostradamus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Bungey, Michael Scotus, Joannes Picus, Trithemius, Robertus Lincolniensis, Albertus Magnus, pope Sylvester II. pope Gregory VII. Joseph, Solomon, the wise men of the East who came to worship Jesus Christ, and Virgil.

While at Padua he lost his father, which obliged him to return to Paris to settle his affairs. In 1628, the faculty of medicine chose him to make the ordinary harangues at the admission of licentiates, which he performed entirely to their satisfaction. One of these, in Latin, on the origin and dignity of the medical school at Paris, was printed there in 1628, in octavo. He was then recommended by one of his friends to cardinal Bagni, who appointed him his librarian and Latin secretary. He took him also to Rome in 1631, and Naud had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with the celebrated Peiresc, as the cardinal travelled by the way of Beaugensier, on purpose to see his old friend, who complimented him very warmly on having acquired for a librarian a young man of Naude’s extensive knowledge of books. While on this journey, Naude went to Padua, where, in 1633, he received the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in order to support the character of physician to Louis XIII. with which he had been honoured. On the death of cardinal Bagni, in 1640, he intended to return to France, but had so many liberal offers to remain in Italy, that he changed his mincl, and determined to attach himself to cardinal Barberini. There is much difference of dates amongst his biographers respecting his return from Paris. All we can decide is, that he acted there as librarian to cardinal Mazarine, and that he collected for him a library of 40,OO0 volumes, the greatest that had then appeared in France. But the cardinal died in 1642, and he consequently could not have long been in his service. Perhaps he was employed to make purchases for this library when in Italy, &c. The cardinal appears not to have rewarded him with much liberality, and in 1648 we find him complaining of being neglected. He had, however, a greater mortification to undergo in 1652, when this fine collection was sold by order of the parliament. He is said to have been greatly irritated on this occasion, and bought all the medical books it contained for 3500 livres Isaac Vossius now recommended him to Christina queen of Sweden, with whom he resided a few months as librarian, or rather to fill up that station in the absence of Vossius, who was at this time in disgrace. Isiaude, however, neither liked the employment nor the people, and took an early opportunity to give in his resignation; on which occasion the queen, and some other persons of rank, testified their regard for him by various presents. The fatigue of his journey on returning brought on a fever, which obliged him to stop at Abbeville, where he died July 29, 1653. Naude was a man of great learning, and in his private conduct, correct, prudent, and friendly. His sentiments, as we have noticed, were on some subjects, very liberal, but on others he deserves less praise. While he played the freethinker so far as to despise some parts of the belief of his church, he could gravely vindicate the massacres of St. Bartholomew, as a measure of political expedience. His works are very numerous. To the few already mentioned we may add, 1. “Le Marfore, ou Discours contre les libelles.” Paris, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Instruction & la France sur la verit de l'histoire des freres de la Rose-croix,” ibid. 1623, 8vo. The Rosecrucians he considers as impostors. 3. “Addition a Thistoire de Louis XI.” ibid. 1630. 4. “Consideration politique sur les coups d'Etat, par G. N. P.” Rome, (i. e. Paris), 1639, 4to. It is in this work he vindicates the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but he appears to have published it with great caution, and it is said that this first edition consisted of only twelve copies. It was, however, reprinted in 1667, 1673, and in 1752, 3 vols. 12mo, with notes and reflections by Louis du May. 5. “Bibliographia Politica,” Leyden, 1642, 16mo, a learned work, but not very correct. 6. “Hieronymi Cardani vita,” Paris, 1643, 8vo. 6. “Jugement de tout ce qui a ete imprim6 contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis Jan. 6, jusqu'au 1 Avril, 1649,” Paris, 1641, 4to. This curious work, which is of great rarity, is sometimes called “Mascurat,” and consists of a dialogue between St. Ange, a librarian, L e. Naude, and Mascurat, a printer, i. e. Camusat. 7. “Avis a Nosseigneurs du pariement sur la vente de la Bibliotheque du cardinal Mazarin,” 1G52, 4to. 8. “Nundaeana et Patiniana,” Paris, 1701, in which are many of his sentiments, and some particulars of his history.

, an able mathematician, was born in 1654, of poor parents, at Metz. He retired to Berlin after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and there forming a friendship with Langerfield, mathematician to the court, who taught the pages, succeeded him in 1696, was admitted into the society of sciences at Berlin in 1701, and into the academy of the princes, as professor of mathematics, in 1704. He died in 1729, at Berlin. His particular study 'as divinity, on which he has written much more than on mathematics; his only work on that science being a system of geometry, in German, 4to, and some other small pieces in the “Miscellanea,” of the society at Berlin. His theological works are, “Meditationes Saintes,” 12mo, “Morale Evangelique,” 2 vols. 8vo. “La souveraine perfection de Dieu dans ses divins attributs, et la parfaite intégrité de l'Ecriture prise au sens des anciens reformes,” 2 vols. 8vo, against Bayle; “Examen de deux Traités de M. de la Placette,” 2 vols. 12mo. His eldest son distinguished himself as his successor, and died 1745. He was a skilful mathematician, member of the societies of Berlin and London; and several memoirs of his may be found in the “Miscellanea Berolinensia,”

, a statesman in the reign of James I. was of an ancient family in Suffolk, and educated a fellow-commoner of Trinity-college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Trinity -hall, and was chosen a fellow. When his uncle, William Asriby, esq. was sent ambassador from queen Elizabeth into Scotland in 1589, he accompanied him, probably in the office of secretary; and was sometimes sent by him on affairs of trust and importance to the court of England, where we find him in July of that year, discontented with his unsuccessful dependance on courtiers, and resolved to hasten back to his uncle, to whom he returned in the beginning of the month following, and continued with him till January 1589, when Mr. Ashby was succeeded in his embassy by Robert Bowes, esq. Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does not appear to have had interest enough to advance him to any civil post; for which reason it is probable that, after his lordship’s disgrace, Mr. Naunton returned to college, and, in 1601, was elected public orator of the university. Lloyd observes, that his speeches, “both while proctor and orator of Cambridge, discovered him more inclined to public accomplishments than private studies.” A speech which he had to deliver before James I. at Hinchinbroke, is said to have pleased the king very much, and paved the way to his obtaining employment at court. Accordingly he was first made master of the requests, then surveyor of the court of wards, by the interest of sir Thomas Overbury and sir George Villiers, and, in January 1618, was advanced to be secretary of state. He was lastly promoted to be master of the court of wards, which office he resigned in March 1635, and died in the same month. He was buried in the church of Letheringham in Suffolk.

Sir Robert Naunton, for so he was created by James I. was a man of considerable learning, and well qualified for political affairs; and his letters contain many curious facts and just observations on the characters and parties of his day. His “Fragmenta Regalia” continues to preserve his memory. This tract, printed first in 1641, 4to, contains some interesting observations on queen Elizabeth, and her principal courtiers, apparently written with impartiality; but in an uncouth and rugged style.

a learned Italian scholar and poet, was born at Venice, of a patrician family, in 1483, and was instructed in Latin and Greek at Venice and Padua, under Sabellicus and Marcus Musurus. In the Latin language and composition he acquired great facility and taste, as appeared by his subsequent productions; and also cultivated Italian poetry, in his youth, with equal success. He appears to have embarked both in military and political life. He attended his friend Livanius, the Venetian general, in some of his expeditions and one of his most elegant Latin poems was a funeral elogy on that officer. His political talents recommended him t6 the office of Venetian ambassador at the court of Charles V. when the Italian States began to take the alarm at that monarch’s apparent projects of aggrandizement. He was afterwards deputed on a similar mission to Francis I.; but too great solicitude on this occasion is supposed to have been fatal to him. After travelling with great speed to France, he had scarce paid his respects to the monarch when he was seized with a fever, at Blois, and died in 1529, in his forty-sixth year.

In 1515, he was nominated by the senate of Venice historiographer of iiis native country, and was at that time deemed the most elegant Latin writer that Italy could boast. He appears however to have been so fastidious as to be rarely satisfied with any thing he wrote, and is supposed to have destroyed ten books of the history of Venice a few hours before his death. Many of his poems shared the same fate, either because they fell short of that standard of excellence which he had formed in his own mind, or had been composed after models which he deemed illchosen. If he could be thus severe to himself, we cannot wonder that he should be equally so to others. It is said, that he every year burnt a copy of Martial, as a corrupter of that pure taste which distinguished the writers of the Augustan age. Navagero’s Latin poems are how consequently few in number, but sufficient to justify the character bestowed by his countrymen, and the esteem in which they held him. They were printed in 1530, under the title “Andreas Naugerii Patricii Veneti Orationes duse, Carminaque nonnulla,” Venice, folio. Considerable additions were made by Vulpius, although improperly called “opera omnia;” and printed at Padua, in quarto, 1718.

Navagero was also distinguished for his Greek literature, and was such an admirer of Pindar that he transcribed his works more than once. He was a great encourager of the labours of Aldus Manutius, and diligently revised and corrected the texts of Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Quintilian, and especially of Cicero. Irt inscribing to Navagero, by a most interesting preface, the volume which comprizes the “Rhetorica Ciceronis,” printed at Venice in 1514, 8vo, Aldus testified the high sense which he entertained of these obligations.

, a Spanish painter, was born in 1562 at Logronno, and becoming, in his third year, both deaf and dumb, is generally known under the name of " E! Mudo.' His talent for the art was not, however, affected by this misfortune; a rapid progress in the school of Fr. Vicente soon enabled him to travel to Italy, and to form himself at Venice upon the works of Titian. After his return to Madrid, he was, 1568, nominated painter to the king, and gave a proof of his great talent by a small picture representing the baptism of Christ, still preserved in the Escurial; which is indeed the repository of his most distinguished works, especially of the celebrated Presepio, in which the principal light emanates from the Infant; the S. Hippolytus in nocturnal quest after the body of S. Lorenzo, where silence, secresy, and fear, appear personified; and what is commonly considered as his masterpiece, a Holy Family, not less noticed for the characteristic singularity of the accessories than the beauties of the groupe. To these his works at Valencia, Salamanca, and Estrella are little inferior; all distinguished by a colour which acquired him the title of the Spanish Titian. He died in 1579.

, a Spanish Dominican friar, born in Old Castile, is said to have been an eloquent preacher. He quitted Spain in 1646 on a mission to China, where he did not arrive till 1659. He was head of the mission in the province of Chekiang when the persecution arose, and was expelled with the rest of the missionaries. In 1672, he returned to Spain; and soon after went to Rome to give the pope an account of his conduct, which savoured more of the zeal of Loyola than of St. Paul. In 1678 Charles II. raised him to the archbishopric of St. Domingo, in America, where he resided till his death, in 1689. He spoke the Chinese language fluently, and no person, perhaps, understood better the affairs of China, He wrote a work entitled “Tradados Historicos, Politicos, Ethicos, y Religiosos, de la monarchia de China.” The first volume, folio, Mad. 1676, is scarce and curious, but has been inserted in Churchill’s Voyages; the second was suppressed by the inquisition, but has been so often quoted by the Jesuits, that it is thought the inquisitors gave away a few copies before they destroyed the impression; the third never was published. Navaretta is said also to have written some religious tracts in the Chinese language.

, a remarkable person of the society called Quakers, was born at Ardsley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire, about 1616. His father was a husbandman, who had some estate of his own, and gave to his son such an education as enabled him to express himself with facility in his native tongue. James married and settled in Wakefield parish about 1638; and, in 1641, became a private soldier in the parliament army, in which he was afterwards made a quarter-master under major-general Lambert, but quitted it, on account of sickness, in 1649. Being convinced of the doctrines of the people called Quakers, by the means of George Fox, in 1651, the next year he believed himself divinely required to. quit his relations and go into the West, not knowing what he was to do there; but when he came there he had it given him what to declare; and thus he continued, not knowing one day what he was to do the next; but relying on that divine aid which he believed himself to receive.

He was a man of excellent natural parts, and acquitted himself so well, both in word and writing, that many joined the society through his ministry. He came to London towards the beginning of 1655, in which city a meeting of Quakers had been established by the ministry of Edward Burrough and Francis Howgill, two eminent Quakers from Westmorland. Here Nayler preached with so much applause, that the distinction which he acquired occasioned his fall; for, some inconsiderate women setting him up in their esteem above Howgill and Burrough, went so far as to disturb them in their public preaching. These men giving to the women a deserved reproof, two of them complained of it to Nayler, who, although at the first he was backward to pass censure on his brethren, yet, at length, suffering himself to be wrought upon by the reiterated and passionate complaints of one Martha Simmons (the chief engine of the mischief), he became estranged from them, and gave ear to the flatteries of his unadvised adherents. In 1656, he suffered imprisonment at Exeter and about this time several deluded persons addressed him by letter in terms of great extravagance. He was called “the everlasting Son of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, the only begotten Son of God, the Fairest of Ten Thousand;” and during his confinement in Exeter gaol some women knelt before him and kissed his feet. About this time George Fox returning out of the West, where he had himself suffered a rigorous imprisonment, called on James Nayler in the prison at Exeter, and gave him some reproof for his defection and extravagance. This Nayler slighted, but nevertheless would have saluted Fox with a kiss; but George rejected his salutation, alleging that “he had turned against the power of God.”

Soon after his release from Exeter, we find him entering Bristol, accompanied by his wild adherents. One of them, a man, went before him bare-headed; a woman led his horse, and three others spread their scarves and handkerchiefs before him; while the company sang “holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Hosts, hosanna in the highest, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Israel.” For this Nayler and his attendants were examined by the magistrates, and he was sent to London soon after to be examined by the parliament. After referring the matter to a committee, the House resolved “that James Nayler is guilty of horrid blasphemy, and that he is a grand impostor and seducer cf the people.” Nine days after this, the business having been daily brought forward, the parliament gave the following sentence: “That James Nayler be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, in the Palace-yard, Westminster, during the space of two hours, on Thursday next, and be whipped by the hangman through the streets from Westminster to the Old Exchange, London; and then likewise be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, for the space of two hours, between the hours of eleven and one on Saturday next, in each place wearing a paper containing an inscription of his crimes; and that at the Old Exchange his tongue be bored through with a hot iron; and that he be there also stigmatized in the forehead with the letter B; and that he be afterwards sent to Bristol, and be conveyed into and through the said city on horseback, with his face backward; and there also publicly whipped the next market-day after he comes thither; and that thence he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there restrained from the society of all people and there to labour hard till he shall be released by parliament; and during that time be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and shall have no relief but what he earns by his daily labour.”

There are a few things observable in the treatment of this case. One is, that Nayler was declared to be guilty of horrid blasphemy, when it does not appear that he himself uttered any words in that transaction for which he was apprehended. Another is, the great severity of the sentence, viz. excessive whipping, two pilloryings of two hours each, boring the tongue with an hot iron, and branding the forehead; at Bristol a second whipping; and, finally, a solitary confinement with hard labour, sine die. But a third thing to be observed is, that the active persons in the business, the ranting women, received no share of the punishment, except some confinement. From these circumstances it would seem that the object of the parliament was to bring the Quakers into discredit, by letting the weight of their censure fall on Nayler, who had been so eminent among them; although letters found on him at Bristol from some of them, shewed that they disclaimed fellowship with his disorderly proceedings.

The 20th of December Nayler suffered a part of his sentence, standing two hours in the pillory and receiving at a cart’s tail 3 10 stripes. He was so much reduced, by this severity that the execution of the remainder was respited till the 27th, when he was again pilloried, bored, and stigmatized: after which he was sent to Bristol, and whipped from the middle of Thomas-street to the middle of Broadstreet, and then sent to his prison in Bridewell.

Notwithstanding the prohibition of implements of writing, Nayler found means to procure them in his confinement, and wrote many things condemning his past conduct. The following^ addressed to his friends, the Quakers, is an extract of one of them: “Dear brethren, my heart is broken this day for the offence that I have occasioned to God’s truth and people, and especially to you, who in dear love followed me, seeking me in faithfulness to God, which I rejected, being bound wherein I could not come forth, till God’s hand brought me, to whose love I now confess. And, I beseech you, forgive wherein I evil requited your love in that day. 'God knows my sorrow for it, since I see it, that ever I should offend that of God in any, or reject his counsel and I greatly fear farther to offend, or do amiss, whereby the innocent truth, or people of God, should suffer, or that I should disobey therein.”

He was confined about two years; and after he was set at liberty he went to Bristol, where, in a public meeting, he made confession of his offence and fall, so as to draw tears from most of those who were present: and, restoration to humility of mind and soundness of judgment being apparent in him, he was restored to the esteem and fellowship of his friends. He quitted London finally in 1660, intending to return to his wife and children at Wakefield; but was found by a countryman one evening in a field near Holm and King’s Rippon, in Huntingdonshire, having been (as was said) robbed, and left bound. He was taken to Holm, and his cloaths shifted, on which he said, “You have refreshed my body; the Lord refresh your souls:” not long after which he died in peace, and his remains were interred inn King’s Rippon, in a burying-ground belonging to Thomas Parnel, a physician there. About two hours before his close, he spoke these words: “There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it; for, its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love, unfeigned; and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, f though none else regard it, or can own its life. It’s conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it: nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for, with the world’s joy, it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken: I have fellowship therein with them, who lived in dens and desolate places, in the earth; who through death obtained this resurrection, and eternal holy life.” Nayler’s writings were collected into an octavo volume, printed in 1716, which may still occasionally be found.

, an eminent dissenting divine, and the historian of the Puritans, was born in London, Dec. 14, 1678, and educated at Merchant-Taylors’ school, of which he was head scholar in 1697. He appears to have then declined proceeding to St. John’s, Oxford, and determined to enter as a student in a dissenting academy, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe. Three years after he removed, for the farther prosecution of his studies, to Holland, where he heard the lectures of Graevius and Burman, during two years, and afterwards passed a year at Leyden. Soon after his return to London, in 1703, he began to officiate as a preacher, and in 1706 succeeded Dr. Singleton as minister to a congregation at Loriners’ Hall. Of this congregation, which, for want of room, rmoved afterwards to a more commodious meeting in Jewinstreet, he remained pastor for thirty-six years, and was esteemed one of the most useful, laborious, and learned divines of his communion.

Although assiduous and indefatigable in the discharge of the duties attached to the ministerial office, he found leisure for writing those works which gained him much fame among the dissenters during his lifetime, and have rendered his a name of importance in our own days. His first production, which appeared in 1720, was his “History of New England; being an impartial account of the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the country, with a new map, &c.” 2 vols. 8vo. This met with a very favourable reception in America, and procured him the degree of M. A. from one of the American universities, and although perhaps less interesting in this country, contains many curious particulars of the establishment of that colony, with biographical memoirs of the principal persons in church and state.

In 1722 he published a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Francis Hare, dean of Worcester, occasioned by his reflections on the Dissenters, in his late visitation Sermon and Postscript,” 8vo. In the same year he published a tract which excited considerable attention from the novelty and importance of its subject, “A Narrative of the method and success of inoculating the Small-pox, in New-England, by Mr. Benjamin Colman; with a reply to the objections made against it from principles of conscience, in a letter from a minister at Boston. To which is now prefixed, an historical introduction.” This procured him an interview with their royal highnesses the prince and princess of Wales, afterwards George II. and queen Caroline.

From this time he published only five occasional sermons, till 1732, when the first volume of his “History of the Puritans” appeared; and continued to be published, the second volume in 1733, the third in 1736, and the fourth in 1738, in 8vo. Of the impartiality of this work various opinions were then and are still entertained. We have had repeated occasions to examine it, and we think it exhibits as much impartiality as could have been expected from a writer whose object was to elevate the character of the puritans and non-conformists, at the expence of the members of the established church. And when it was discovered that he represented the church of England as almost uniformly a persecuting church, it was not surprizing he should meet with answers from those who, in surveying the history of the puritans, when they became known by the name of non-conformists, considered that the ejected were at one time the ejectors; the right of the usurping powers in Cromwell’s time to throw down the whole edifice of the church, being the main principle on which the controversy hinges. Mr. Neal’s representation of that event, and of the sufferings of his brethren, first called forth the abilities of Dr. Maddox, bishop of St. Asaph, who published “A Vindication of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of England, as established in the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the injurious reflections of Mr. Neal’s first volume,” &c. 8vo. To this Mr. Neal replied in “A Review of the Principal Facts objected to in the first volume of the History of the Puritans.” The subject was then taken up by Dr. Zachary Grey, in “An Impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans. In which the reflections of that author, upon king James I. and king Charles I. are proved to be groundless; his misrepresentations of the conduct of the prelates of those times, fully detected; and his numerous mistakes in history, and unfair way of quoting his authorities, exposed to public view,” 1736, 8vo. In 1737 and 1739, Dr. Grey published two more volumes, containing the same kind of examination of the third and fourth volumes of Neal’s History. Although Mr. Neal lived seven years after the appearance of Dr. Grey’s first volume in 1736, we are told that it was his declining state of health which prevented him from publishing a vindication. This task has been since attempted by Dr. Joshua Toulmin of Birmingham, in a new edition of Neal begun in 1793, and completed in 1797, 5 vols. 8vo; but we may repeat the opinion given in our account of Dr. Grey, that his and bishop Maddux’s volumes are still absolutely necessary to an impartial consideration of the subject.

During the interval that elapsed before the appearance of the remainfng parts of his history, Mr. Neal was concerned in carrying on two courses of lectures, the one at the meeting in Berry-street, the other in that at Salter’s Hall, which have been since printed in 2 vols. 8vo each. But so much application to his public duties and private studies, at length produced a chronic disorder, which obliged him, in 1742, to resign his pastoral charge; and he died, at Bath, April 4, 1743, in the sixty fifth year of his age, to the great and lasting regret of his family and friends, by whom he was highly esteemed as a man of great probity, piety, and usefulness. His son, Nathaniel Neal, an attorney, and secretary to the Million bank, was the author of “A free and serious remonstrance to Protestant Dissenting Ministers, on occasion of the Decay of Religion,” and of some letters, in Dr. Doddridge’s collection, published by Mr. Stedman.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

, one of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, was born at Soraw, a town in Lower Silesia, in 1525, where his father was a merchant. He received his early education under Henry Theodore, who was superintendant of the churches of the duchy of Lignitz. He then studied principally at Wittemberg, where, among other able men, he was instructed by Melanchthon, and became conspicuous for his critical acquaintance with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and his knowledge of the eminent authors in these respective languages. In 1549, he was invited to Northusen, an imperial town of Thuringia; and being appointed regent of the school, acquired the esteem of the senate. He was of the reformed religion, and Thomas Stangius, the last abbot of Isfeld, who was of the same sentiments, havfng, by the advice of Luther and Melanchthon, turned his abbey into a college, Neander was appointed regent, and taught there with great reputation for forty-five years, producing many able scholars. He died at Isfeld, May 6, 1595, in the seventieth year of his age.

From his works he appears to have deserved the high character he enjoyed during his life-time, and which some critics of modern times have revived. He was one of the very few in those days who turned their thoughts to the history of literature. His first publication was “Erotema Grascae Linguae, cum proefatione Philippi Melanchthonis de utilitate Grsecae linguse,” Basil, 1553, and 1565, 8vo. In a subsequent edition Neander gives a list of the works he had published, or which he had projected, and among the latter was an universal history of authors, “Pandectae variorum auctorum et scriptorum.” From the sketch he had given of the proposed contents of this work, there is great reason to regret that he did not complete it; in the second edition of his “Erotemata” he has given a specimen of what he could have done, in a dissertation on ancient libraries, on books that are lost, and on the libraries of his own time which contained the most valuable Mss. and an account of the principal Greek and Latin authors, whose works have been published, with a minuteness of description which would have reflected credit on a modern bibliographer. The last edition of his “Erotemata” was edited at Leipsic in 1589, 8vo, by his disciple, John Volland. Neander’s other works are, 2. “Graecae Linguae Tabulae,” Basil, 1564, and Wittemberg, 1581, 8vo. 3. “Linguae Hebreae Erotemata, cum veterurn Rabbinorurn testimoniis de Christo, apophthegmatibus veterum Hebreeorum et notitia de Talmude, Cabbala, &c.” Basil, 1556, 8vo, often reprinted. The preface to this work is on the same plan with that to the “Erotemata Graecae Linguae,” containing notices of the most eminent Oriental scholars, the writings of the rabbins, the editions of the Bible, &c. 4. “Aristologia Pindarica Graeco-Latina, et Sententiae novem Lyricorum,” Basil, 1556, 8vo, with prolegomena on the life of Pindar, the Greek games, &c. 5. “Aristologia GraecoLatina Euripidis; argumenta quoque singulis tragcediis praemissa sunt,” ibid. 1559, 4to. 6. “Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. This is a collection of sentences from Hesiod, Theognes, and other ancient poets, with three books of similar extracts from Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. but is by no means, as some bibliographers have called it, a new edition of the Greek Anthology. 7. “Gnomonologia Graeco-Latina, sive insigniores sententiae philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum, et historicorum, ex magno Anthologio Joannis Stobaei excerptae, et in locos supra bis centum digests,” ibid. 1558, 8vo. 8. “Opus aureum et Scholasticum,” Leipsic, 1577, or, according to Fabricius, 1575, a collection somewhat like the former, but with some entire pieces, as the poem of Comthus on the rape of Helen, that of Tryphiodorus on the destruction of Troy, and three books of Quintus Calaber, which last are translated into Latin prose by Lawrence Rhodoman, one of Neander’s pupils. 9. “Sententiae Theologicae selectiores, Græco-Latinæ,” Basil, 1557, 8vo. 10. “Catechesis parva Martini Lutheri Graeco-Latina,” &c. ibid. 1564­and 1567, 8vo. 11. “Loci communes Philosophic! Graeci,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo, a work by Volland, above-mentioned, with notes by Neander. 12. “Gnomonologia Latina ex omnibus Latinis vetustis ac probatis autoribus, recentioribus etiam aliquot, in locos communes digesta,” Leipsic, 1581, and 1590, 8vo. 13. “Phraseologia Isocratis GraecoLatina,” Basil, 1558, 8vo. 14. “Joannis Vollandi de re Poetica Graecorum libri quatuor, e noutionibus et bibliotheca Mich. Neandri collecti,” Leipsic, 1582, 1592, ancl 1613, 8vo. 15. “Argonautica, Thebaica, Troica, Ilias parva; poematia Graeca anonymi (Laur. Rhodomani) primum edita cum argumentis a Mich. Neandro,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo. Some other works have been attributed to Neander, on less certain authority, which are mentioned by Fabricius and Baillet; and more ample information respecting him may probably be found in a work which we have not seen, a life of him by Volborth, in German, published at Gottingen in 1777. There flourished about the same time with our author, a physician of the same names, who was born in 1529, and died in 1581, whose forgotten works, however, cannot easily be mistaken for those of the learned Greek professor.

, who flourished in the twelfth century, was probably born, and certainly educated at St. Alban’s abbey, of which period of his life he speaks with pleasing recollection in his poem “De Laude sapientiae Divinae.” He completed his education at Paris, and took the order of St. Augustine. He became the friend, associate, and correspondent of Peter of Blois, or Petrus Blesensis, and was afterwards abbot of Cirencester, in which office he died in 1217. He was much attached to the studious repose of the monastic life, yet he frequently travelled into Italy. His compositions are various, and, as Mr. Warton observes, crowd the department of Mss. in our public libraries. He has left numerous treatises of divinity, philosophy, and morality, and was also a poet, a philologist, and a grammarian. He wrote a tract on the mythology of the ancient poets, Esopian fables, and a system of 'grammar and rhetoric. Mr. Warton, who examined his elegiac poem “De vita motiastica,” says it contains some finished lines; but gives the highest praise to the poem already mentioned, “De divina sapientia.”